Funny events in anti-woke world

Dalisclock

Making lemons combustible again
Legacy
Escapist +
Feb 9, 2008
10,476
6,028
118
A Barrel In the Marketplace
Country
Eagleland
Gender
Male
The mindset: "Anything that I disagree with must not exist. Land of the free!"
Either that or the sheer terror that the US is slowly becoming less religious(30% of Americans are openly non-religious) in just a few decades and a lot more people then that are nominally non-religious(Professing christian beliefs but not being terribly observant). To the evangelical/fundamentalist types who BELIEVE a Christian Theocracy would be a great idea(nevermind the fact it wouldn't, even for them) I imagine it's pretty terrifying. It goes without saying that the venn diagram between US fundamentalists/evangelicals and fucking morons is pretty close to a circle.

There's also the factor a lot of such folks see Atheism as synonymous with Communism, which is even dumber but there we are.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: BrawlMan and Baffle

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
5,312
823
118
Country
USA
Well, it's because I'd like to figure out where exactly you went wrong so we can learn something together..
No, you don't. You want to keep me talking until you can find something to complain about, because you have neither a position of your own that can stand even your own scrutiny nor a counterargument to what I said.

Make your own argument.
 

Hades

Elite Member
Mar 8, 2013
1,642
1,033
118
Country
The Netherlands
  • Like
Reactions: Thaluikhain

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,580
1,306
118
Country
United Kingdom
No, you don't. You want to keep me talking until you can find something to complain about, because you have neither a position of your own that can stand even your own scrutiny nor a counterargument to what I said.
My 'position' in this case, although I think calling it that is a little insulting given that it's just a basic truth, is that noone knows enough about the likely outcomes for trans children to be able to give any determinate figure for how many will "desist".

But there is an another relevant position that I hold based on personal experience. See, I know what desistance means because I have technically done it, and I know from the limited body of qualitative research that exists on the subject that I am a lot more typical of children who desist than whatever you seem to be imagining. Desistance means that a person shows symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria and yet does not physically transition. It does not mean that a person becomes gender conforming, or that they adopt an identity consistent with their assigned sex at birth or that anything about them has actually changed, because things like that don't really change. It doesn't mean they won't transition eventually once whatever issues have prevented them from doing so are resolved. It absolutely, absolutely doesn't mean that a person ends up living a happy life, or that they are not traumatized by the experience.

Sit and think about it for a minute. You are claiming that if we simply refuse to affirm a child's identity and just refuse to acknowledge any associated needs, they will almost always abandon that identity. Beyond the fact that's obviously wrong, did you stop to think at any point about the hypothetical mechanism that might cause it to happen? Did you think about the psychological process that child has to go through to reach the point, or what long-term consequences that might have for the person? Of course you didn't, to you those children aren't emotionally complex human beings, they're statistics, and the goal is to instrumentalize them into the right kind of statistics.

So, if you want a counterargument, here it is. Your 'position' is more concerned with your own ability to live in a world that facilitates your moral comfort than with anyone else's actual suffering. You would rather share the world with broken people than share it with trans people, because you ultimately cannot comprehend the value of a life outside of your own or why that life would be worth living. Do you feel better now that I've stated that position?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
5,312
823
118
Country
USA
Desistance means that a person shows symptoms consistent with gender dysphoria and yet does not physically transition. It does not mean that a person becomes gender conforming, or that they adopt an identity consistent with their assigned sex at birth or that anything about them has actually changed, because things like that don't really change. It doesn't mean they won't transition eventually once whatever issues have prevented them from doing so are resolved. It absolutely, absolutely doesn't mean that a person ends up living a happy life, or that they are not traumatized by the experience.
The study I linked to on the last page defined "persisters" as those who continued to have gender dysphoria and "desisters" as those who did not continue to have gender dysphoria. It found an overwhelming majority desisted. You are making your own definitions again.
You are claiming that if we simply refuse to affirm a child's identity and just refuse to acknowledge any associated needs, they will almost always abandon that identity.
It's much, much simpler than that. Nearly everyone abandon's their childhood identity. A large number of people will have major personality changes from childhood to teen years, and an ever greater number change from their teen years to adulthood. And then even again, in older people, women at menopause or men with diminishing testosterone. It's not about affirmation or non-affirmation. The correlation is between persistence and clinical treatment / medication. It feels like a very simple thing to say, but if you block someone's puberty, they don't change as a person the way that people who go through natural puberty do, carried by the changes in their body chemistry.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,580
1,306
118
Country
United Kingdom
The study I linked to on the last page defined "persisters" as those who continued to have gender dysphoria and "desisters" as those who did not continue to have gender dysphoria. It found an overwhelming majority desisted. You are making your own definitions again.
Some important context. Since you've bought sources into this.

Kenneth Zucker is a former psychotherapist who was fired for heroically speaking truth to power against the forces of political correctness advocating for and practicing "desistance-focused" (i.e. conversion) therapy. His method is essentially based on the standard principles of coercive behavioral modification. Encouraging patients' families to restrict and punish them for gender non-conforming behaviour, such as by throwing out all their "inappropriate" toys and using threats or ultimatums to enforce gender normative behaviour. Parents of children treated by Zucker have described how their children developed signs of depression and emotional problems due to this treatment. Former patients of Zucker have also made much more serious allegations, for example one teenager claimed that he forced them to undress in front of him while he verbally abused them. Humiliation and verbal abuse is, of course, has been a common part of coercive behavioral modification techniques since the Synanon Game.

Susan J Bradley and Devita Singh are both coworkers of Bradley and also advocates of desistance-focused therapy.

This is relevant because the clinic used in the study you quoted is the one all three worked at, meaning the children in this study had been subjected to this treatment.

This piece of "research" is propaganda meant to demonstrate the effectiveness of a method that, whether or not the allegations of serious abuse are true, is demonstrably cruel and harmful to children. You must have already known, on some level, that the results you claim could only have been achieved through deliberate cruelty, but I would hope that you did not intend to advocate for child abuse quite so literally.

Anyway, let's talk about "definitions".

Firstly, the test used to determine whether or not these children had gender dysphoria is not an actual diagnostic assessment, it's two self-reporting questionnaires, one of which was co-authored by Zucker. Tell me again about "making up definitions?"

Secondly, even by this metric just over one-third of the children in the study didn't have gender dysphoria to begin with. They get around this by claiming that these children showed "some degree" of gender identity disorder, but this is not applied consistently in the follow up. This would make the actual rate of desistance around 50%, not 80%.

Again, bear in mind these are children whose parents have been told by the people doing this study to threaten and punish them for displaying signs of gender non-conformity.

It feels like a very simple thing to say, but if you block someone's puberty, they don't change as a person the way that people who go through natural puberty do, carried by the changes in their body chemistry.
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2021-80256-001

Go find a mirror. Look at yourself in the mirror, and say to yourself "I am comfortable with children being abused if it allows me to feel justified in my bigotry."

That's the person you are. Your punishment is having to live with that.
 

Gergar12

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 24, 2020
2,411
616
118
Country
United States

Thank you, Netflix for taking away this funny guy's show because MBS Bone Saw didn't like his show.
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
5,312
823
118
Country
USA
This piece of "research" is propaganda meant to demonstrate the effectiveness of a method that, whether or not the allegations of serious abuse are true.
You mean the allegations of serious abuse were withdrawn, and Zucker was apologized to, but only after his entire clinic was shut down for lack of conformity to your opinions.
This is an opinion piece masquerading as science. They actually argue here that it's better to transition a cis-child than leave a trans-child untransitioned, on the basis of two people who didn't actively express regret having started transition. One side of your mouth is pointing to a lack of research, while the other side is linking to articles with 2 points of only short term data to build an opinion on.
 

Terminal Blue

Elite Member
Legacy
Feb 18, 2010
3,580
1,306
118
Country
United Kingdom
You mean the allegations of serious abuse were withdrawn, and Zucker was apologized to, but only after his entire clinic was shut down for lack of conformity to your opinions.
No, because that didn't happen. His clinic wasn't even shut down, he was fired from it.

Also, as if it needs to be said coercive behavioral modification is abuse. It was literally pioneered and developed by a cult (that went on to commit numerous crimes). The reason why the serious allegations are believable is because that's literally how the method works. Using your position as a medical authority figure to encourage parents to threaten their very young children, inflict arbitrarily punishment, take away their toys and otherwise present parental love and acceptance as conditional on gender normativity is abuse. It is not meant to help that child, it is meant to break them down and make them feel like their own wishes and needs aren't important so that they will be susceptible to further coercion.

Fuck "conformity to my opinions". Your "opinions" are that it's acceptable to abuse children, you are citing a study made by people who abused children about the children they abused. I know that does not weigh on you as it should because caring about other people's suffering is hedonism or something, but there must be a limit to even your capacity for hypocrisy.

This is an opinion piece masquerading as science. They actually argue here that it's better to transition a cis-child than leave a trans-child untransitioned, on the basis of two people who didn't actively express regret having started transition. One side of your mouth is pointing to a lack of research, while the other side is linking to articles with 2 points of only short term data to build an opinion on.
I have done research professionally. Sadly for you, this means I can read, and it also means I can follow up citations.

The section to which you are referring is a response to two researchers who, more than a decade ago, wrote an open letter arguing against allowing young people to socially transition before puberty, which remains a popular talking point for TERFs and conversion therapists. That letter also uses two case studies. Unfortunately, and yet not unsurprisingly, the two children whose case studies were used in that letter did not actually transition. They were not insistent that others recognize them as their asserted gender, they were simply gender non-conforming to the point they were sometimes interpreted by others as being a different gender, which they did not seem to find distressing. If this level of misrepresentation is a surprise, you aren't very familiar with this subject.

The point of this case-study (look up what a case-study is, by the way, because you seem to be misunderstanding that) is to point out that even serious and irreversible forms of medical transition, the kind that are not actually available to children and require years of evaluation before they are prescribed, need not necessarily be harmful if a person later detransitions or turns out to be cisgender. To quote, "it cannot be assumed that growing up to be cis after having socially and/or medically transitioned is necessarily a negative outcome" (emphasis mine). It is a basic reminder that the system is intended to operate in the best interests of the patient, and just because a parent or doctor may see a child detransitioning/retransitioning as a failure does not mean the patient necessarily will.

And this is relevant because the point being made is one of comparative harm. As I mentioned, there has never been a comprehensive study on the outcomes for trans and gender variant children, so what we are inevitably talking about is qualitative research. We cannot say for sure what proportion of children will desist, but we can use qualitative research and case studies to point to cases of harm (or the lack of harm) in order to illustrate some of the possibilities. What you should really be noting here is that the side you are defending cannot produce even two case studies of children actually transitioning and then being harmed by doing so.
 
Last edited:

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,766
4,302
118
Country
United Kingdom
This is an opinion piece masquerading as science. They actually argue here that it's better to transition a cis-child than leave a trans-child untransitioned, on the basis of two people who didn't actively express regret having started transition.
Let's take a look at the actual bit you're drawing on for this. What's the quote?
 

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
5,312
823
118
Country
USA
No, because that didn't happen. His clinic wasn't even shut down, he was fired from it.

They settled with him for half a million dollars, and publicly apologized, because their review, inspired by the accusations of conversion therapy that you are repeating, was filled with "errors". Maybe don't hold so firmly onto claims that cost people half a million dollars avoiding the defamation and wrongful termination suits.

But also, "CAMH stands by its decision to close the child and youth gender identity clinic." So yes, his clinic was closed. You are wrong on all counts.
Sadly for you, this means I can read.
I don't doubt that you can read, but it seems likely you choose not to most of the time. Including this time, when you read the sample for people regretting transition, where I was talking about the sample for people not regretting transition. See my response to Silvanus below and try again.
Let's take a look at the actual bit you're drawing on for this. What's the quote?
From page 2:

"In the third section, I argue that the distress associated with social and/or medical transition among youth who grow up to be cisgender is not meaningfully comparable to the distress associated with delaying or discouraging transition. On the contrary, social and medical transition may be appreciated by many youths who grow up to be cisgender because of the opportunity for exploration that they provide."

From the third section, page 7, the evidence presented to support the conclusion that there's little harm to beginning transition:

"Recent case studies suggest, on the contrary, that transition may be beneficial and appreciated by some youths who grow up to be cis. The composite case of Jamie, described by Jack Turban and Alex Keuroghlian (2018) illustrates this phenomenon. For 13 months, Jamie took testosterone, used the pronoun “he” and wore traditionally masculine clothing. After 13 months, however, Jamie informed the clinical team that, upon reflection, she understood herself to be a queer woman and wished to cease testosterone. Despite retransitioning, Jamie did not regret initiating testosterone nor the physical changes it brought. Instead, “(s)he was adamant that without being allowed to socially transition and experience testosterone therapy, she would not have settled into her identity [as a queer woman]” (Turban & Keuroghlian, 2018, p. 452). Exploring her gender through social and medical transition had been integral to her identity formation, and she was grateful for the opportunity to undertake them. A similar attitude was reported in a person assigned male at birth who eventually settled into a nonbinary identity and discontinued estrogen and puberty blockers (Turban et al., 2018). In a study of 88 minors who initiated hormone therapy at the Callen-Lorde clinic in New York City, both youths who discontinued hormone therapy denied having regrets (Blasdel et al., 2018)."

Going so far as to suggest further down the page:

"...many individuals may benefit from exploring their gender through transition. The gratitude of youths who eventually realize that medical transition is not for them and/or who settle in a gender identity corresponding to the gender they were assigned at birth can be explained by the fact that transition provides a uniquely fertile opportunity for gender exploration."

The author extrapolates from two data points (I may have said two people earlier, if so I apologize, one of the data points had two people, so 3 people total). They took 3 people saying they didn't regret beginning transition, converted lack of regret to the word "gratitude". They conclude, based on wholesale, unempirical rationalization the ultimately cis- people would feel gratitude for the experience of transitioning, explained by a "fact" that has absolutely no evidence whatsoever, one which given any honest consideration flies in the face of the argument for transition in the first place.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,766
4,302
118
Country
United Kingdom
From page 2:

"In the third section, I argue that the distress associated with social and/or medical transition among youth who grow up to be cisgender is not meaningfully comparable to the distress associated with delaying or discouraging transition. On the contrary, social and medical transition may be appreciated by many youths who grow up to be cisgender because of the opportunity for exploration that they provide."

From the third section, page 7, the evidence presented to support the conclusion that there's little harm to beginning transition:

"Recent case studies suggest, on the contrary, that transition may be beneficial and appreciated by some youths who grow up to be cis. The composite case of Jamie, described by Jack Turban and Alex Keuroghlian (2018) illustrates this phenomenon. For 13 months, Jamie took testosterone, used the pronoun “he” and wore traditionally masculine clothing. After 13 months, however, Jamie informed the clinical team that, upon reflection, she understood herself to be a queer woman and wished to cease testosterone. Despite retransitioning, Jamie did not regret initiating testosterone nor the physical changes it brought. Instead, “(s)he was adamant that without being allowed to socially transition and experience testosterone therapy, she would not have settled into her identity [as a queer woman]” (Turban & Keuroghlian, 2018, p. 452). Exploring her gender through social and medical transition had been integral to her identity formation, and she was grateful for the opportunity to undertake them. A similar attitude was reported in a person assigned male at birth who eventually settled into a nonbinary identity and discontinued estrogen and puberty blockers (Turban et al., 2018). In a study of 88 minors who initiated hormone therapy at the Callen-Lorde clinic in New York City, both youths who discontinued hormone therapy denied having regrets (Blasdel et al., 2018)."

Going so far as to suggest further down the page:

"...many individuals may benefit from exploring their gender through transition. The gratitude of youths who eventually realize that medical transition is not for them and/or who settle in a gender identity corresponding to the gender they were assigned at birth can be explained by the fact that transition provides a uniquely fertile opportunity for gender exploration."

The author extrapolates from two data points (I may have said two people earlier, if so I apologize, one of the data points had two people, so 3 people total). They took 3 people saying they didn't regret beginning transition, converted lack of regret to the word "gratitude". They conclude, based on wholesale, unempirical rationalization the ultimately cis- people would feel gratitude for the experience of transitioning, explained by a "fact" that has absolutely no evidence whatsoever, one which given any honest consideration flies in the face of the argument for transition in the first place.
That absolutely, categorically does not say "it's better to transition a cis child than leave a trans child un-transitioned". That's a complete misrepresentation of the content.
 

Buyetyen

Elite Member
May 11, 2020
2,940
2,156
118
Country
USA
I admire the tenacity it takes to continue this line of argumentation, but I don't think anyone's going to get through to tstorm that trans identities are real and legitimate. In order for his worldview to make sense, they can't be.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Thaluikhain

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
5,312
823
118
Country
USA
That absolutely, categorically does not say "it's better to transition a cis child than leave a trans child un-transitioned". That's a complete misrepresentation of the content.
Explain the difference.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
8,766
4,302
118
Country
United Kingdom
Explain the difference.
Firstly, it says it "may be appreciated", and many "may benefit", giving some examples of people who did benefit. You've construed it as an absolute value judgement, but its clearly more nuanced.

Secondly, below your quoted section it specifies that "retransition" is less of an upheaval for those on puberty blockers, which are much more reversible than testosterone and oestrogen (including the testosterone and oestrogen produced as part of puberty). When you said that they said it's "better to transition a cis child", without the caveats of 1) 'may', and 2) reversible procedures being comparatively easier, then you give the impression they're encouraging much more complete procedures and encouraging it across-the-board. So in fact, the central idea is that a reversible procedure (hormonal blockers) can be more beneficial than a less reversible process (puberty), because it allows an opportunity to explore rather than shunting someone into one track.

Thirdly, they refer to 4 people total: the girl whose experience makes up the majority of the section; a nonbinary kid; and 2 more from a cohort of 88 (the only ones who discontinued) who had no regrets.

On a side-note, it's really a bit ridiculous to complain that they use the term "grateful", because you have no idea what conversations they had with the kid. The kid said that she wouldn't have been able to settle into her current identity without her experience on the hormonal therapy, which is a stance I would say is very reasonable to describe as "grateful".
 
Last edited:

tstorm823

Elite Member
Legacy
Aug 4, 2011
5,312
823
118
Country
USA
On a side-note, it's really a bit ridiculous to complain that they use the term "grateful", because you have no idea what conversations they had with the kid.
The person who wrote the piece we're both reading has no idea what conversations they had with the kid.
Firstly, it says it "may be appreciated", and many "may benefit", giving some examples of people who did benefit. You've construed it as an absolute value judgement, but its clearly more nuanced.
Yes, in that section it says may. That doesn't justify saying "distress associated with social and/or medical transition among youth who grow up to be cisgender is not meaningfully comparable to the distress associated with delaying or discouraging transition."

If anything, I softened the stance by describing it as "one is better than the other". The author not only states that one is better than the other, they claim that the situations are so far from one another that they aren't even meaningfully comparable. It's beyond absolute.