Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Transgender is it just me that is totally perplexed?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Doesn't matter if it did really. If it can't be falsified even in principle it's not a scientific theory, but ideology dressed up as science.
Even the terms used are unscientific. Homosexuality is an 'evolutionary mistake', for instance. This is just drivel, working from a mistaken assumption that evolution has some purpose, that somehow there's good evolution and bad evolution. Total drivel.
 
True. Hadn't even considered how the proposed legal protection smokedout wants - so as to stop 'non-binary' people being discriminated against because of how they feel about their gender or what they are wearing etc - could actually be made to work in real life, how would a case ever be proved so as to force employers / landlords to comply.
same way they are forced to comply re, eg, racial discrimination, surely.
 
No there isn't, the research you just quoted doesn't really support Blanchard's theory, only one of it's assumptions. Most conspiracy theories start from a couple of basics. It is not support for the wider theory.

Well, I can see this is going to go well, but....

I asked you a question, you answered me with a different question. Why should yours take precedence? You do keep doing this.

You missed this important passage from the study:


Following this line of thought, Cantor (2011, 2012, but also see Italiano, 2012) has recently suggested that Blanchard’s predictions have been fulfilled in two independent structural neuroimaging studies. Specifically, Savic and Arver (2011) using VBM on the cortex of untreated nonhomosexual MtFs and another study using DTI in homosexual MtFs (Rametti et al., 2011b) illustrate the predictions. Cantor seems to be right. Nonhomosexual MtFs present differences with heterosexual males in structures that are not sexually dimorphic (Savic & Arver, 2011), while homosexual MtFs (as well as homosexual FtMs) show differences with respect to male and female controls in a series of brain fascicles (Rametti et al., 2011a, 2011b). If other VBM and CTh studies on the cortex of homosexual MtFs are added (Simon et al., 2013; Zubiaurre-Elorza et al., 2013), there is a more substantial number of untreated homosexual MtFs and FtMs that fulfill Blanchard’s prediction but still only one study on nonhomosexual MtFs; to fully confirm the hypothesis, more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed. A much better verification of the hypothesis could be supplied by a specifically designed study including homosexual and nonhomosexual MtFs.

Finally, for Blanchard, MtF and FtM homosexual transsexuality is an extreme expression of homosexuality. He considered the following continuum: homosexual → gender dysphoric homosexual → transsexual homosexual (Blanchard, Clemmensen, & Steiner, 1987). Later, Blanchard also hypothesized that homosexual transsexuals should show differences in sexually dimorphic brain structures (Blanchard, 2008). Thus, from Blanchard’s view, there would be no brain differences between homosexual transsexuals and homosexual persons. This hypothesis has not been directly tested yet. However, there are two studies in the literature with respect to cortical thickness that, taken cautiously, may approach Blanchard’s hypothesis on the relationship between transsexuality and homosexuality.​
 
and racial hatred? Hate is just a feeling, isn't it?

When people are prosecuted and the hate crime legislation is in point, the hate is an aggravating factor. That's how the law works. There's nothing anywhere to prevent anyone harbouring malicious thoughts, as long as these are not acted upon.
 
True. Hadn't even considered how the proposed legal protection smokedout wants - so as to stop 'non-binary' people being discriminated against because of how they feel about their gender or what they are wearing etc - could actually be made to work in real life, how would a case ever be proved so as to force employers / landlords to comply.

Essentially the complainant would be filing something which said 'I was unfairly discriminated against because I feel like a...' and I can't see this ending well.
 
Even the terms used are unscientific. Homosexuality is an 'evolutionary mistake', for instance. This is just drivel, working from a mistaken assumption that evolution has some purpose, that somehow there's good evolution and bad evolution. Total drivel.

I'm here to defend my own words not someone else's, I don't do ad hominem arguments, sorry. Why not take this up with the author? He's quite chatty on Twitter.
 
same way they are forced to comply re, eg, racial discrimination, surely.

One can usually prove race, and one can usually prove religious affiliation. Proving discrimination would follow. Proving 'gender identity' and discrimination based thereon seems unreachable. Again, my issue with protecting 'gender identity' is that IT WEAKENS EXISTING PROTECTIONS. Do you not understand this?
 
True. Hadn't even considered how the proposed legal protection smokedout wants - so as to stop 'non-binary' people being discriminated against because of how they feel about their gender or what they are wearing etc - could actually be made to work in real life, how would a case ever be proved so as to force employers / landlords to comply.

If a landlord threw someone out because they saw them cross dressing, or if someone was refused a job after saying they were non-binary, or because they looked non-binary, then there could be a claim. Just like there could be for sex, sexuality, religion, race, gender transition or disability. Obviously discrimination cases can be complex, and hard to prove, but given that this often involves something which can be seen, such as how a person presents, it could be easier than cases involving disability, religion or sexuality.
 
No one on this thread has put forward a definition of woman that is universal, so why imply that only one side of the debate have failed to do so?

Or a definition of a "man". The point is that these concepts (outside of a simple biological explanation) are contested, especially, historically, by feminists, particularly in relation to issues like patriarchal gender roles, male control over female reproductivity and the ensuing enslavement of women.

To now simply dismiss this debate is incredible arrogance. I'm not surprised that many feminists see the process of erasing feminist critiques of gender, the silencing of actual women and the general tone of furious self-righteousness and justified anger and violence being stereotypically masculine (the fury of men whose privileges are being challenged) and therefore well in accord with patriarchal gender demands.

Where are the voices of transmen in the debate? Why are they so silent?
 
You missed this important passage from the study:


Following this line of thought, Cantor (2011, 2012, but also see Italiano, 2012) has recently suggested that Blanchard’s predictions have been fulfilled in two independent structural neuroimaging studies. Specifically, Savic and Arver (2011) using VBM on the cortex of untreated nonhomosexual MtFs and another study using DTI in homosexual MtFs (Rametti et al., 2011b) illustrate the predictions. Cantor seems to be right. Nonhomosexual MtFs present differences with heterosexual males in structures that are not sexually dimorphic (Savic & Arver, 2011), while homosexual MtFs (as well as homosexual FtMs) show differences with respect to male and female controls in a series of brain fascicles (Rametti et al., 2011a, 2011b). If other VBM and CTh studies on the cortex of homosexual MtFs are added (Simon et al., 2013; Zubiaurre-Elorza et al., 2013), there is a more substantial number of untreated homosexual MtFs and FtMs that fulfill Blanchard’s prediction but still only one study on nonhomosexual MtFs; to fully confirm the hypothesis, more independent studies on nonhomosexual MtFs are needed. A much better verification of the hypothesis could be supplied by a specifically designed study including homosexual and nonhomosexual MtFs.

Finally, for Blanchard, MtF and FtM homosexual transsexuality is an extreme expression of homosexuality. He considered the following continuum: homosexual → gender dysphoric homosexual → transsexual homosexual (Blanchard, Clemmensen, & Steiner, 1987). Later, Blanchard also hypothesized that homosexual transsexuals should show differences in sexually dimorphic brain structures (Blanchard, 2008). Thus, from Blanchard’s view, there would be no brain differences between homosexual transsexuals and homosexual persons. This hypothesis has not been directly tested yet. However, there are two studies in the literature with respect to cortical thickness that, taken cautiously, may approach Blanchard’s hypothesis on the relationship between transsexuality and homosexuality.​
Yup, that's one point of agreement.
 
Or a definition of a "man". The point is that these concepts (outside of a simple biological explanation) are contested, especially, historically, by feminists, particularly in relation to issues like patriarchal gender roles, male control over female reproductivity and the ensuing enslavement of women.

To now simply dismiss this debate is incredible arrogance. I'm not surprised that many feminists see the process of erasing feminist critiques of gender, the silencing of actual women and the general tone of furious self-righteousness and justified anger and violence being stereotypically masculine (the fury of men whose privileges are being challenged) and therefore well in accord with patriarchal gender demands.

Where are the voices of transmen in the debate? Why are they so silent?
eh? I'm not dismissing the argument at all. I'm just disputing one persons claim that their view is the only one.
 
One can usually prove race, and one can usually prove religious affiliation. Proving discrimination would follow. Proving 'gender identity' and discrimination based thereon seems unreachable. Again, my issue with protecting 'gender identity' is that IT WEAKENS EXISTING PROTECTIONS. Do you not understand this?
Race is poorly defined, has no solid base in science, and is largely (if not wholly) a product of society. Gender Identity may be less obvious (or it may not be) but so what? Sexuality may (or may not) be less obvious too, so should we dump those laws? If you want to argue GI will WEAKEN EXISTING PROTECTIONS, you need to put forward an argument, not just hit the caps lock key.
 
I'm sorry, must have missed that. Where was this?

Here's Lawrence's argument:

Opponents of Blanchard's theory have replied that such counterarguments effectively make Blanchard's typology "unfalsifiable" (Winters, 2008, ¶ 6), because any departures from the theory's predictions can simply be dismissed as attributable to misreporting, measurement errors, sampling problems, or psychiatric comorbidity. As Lawrence (2010a) noted, however, Blanchard's typology is not in principle unfalsifiable: One can imagine more reliable methods of measuring sexual orientation and autogynephilic arousal (e.g., Rönspies et al., 2015) that could eliminate reliance on questionable self-report measures and contribute to the resolution of disputed issues. For the present, however, disagreements concerning the explanation of departures from the predictions of Blanchard's autogynephilia-based typology remain unresolved.​

Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism: Concepts and Controversies
 
When people are prosecuted and the hate crime legislation is in point, the hate is an aggravating factor. That's how the law works. There's nothing anywhere to prevent anyone harbouring malicious thoughts, as long as these are not acted upon.

But there is a law to prevent people from discriminating on the grounds of employment, law and services. I fail to understand why extending this protection to people who are non-binary, agender or who reject gender would be the end of the world. I think it would be a good thing. And it wouldn't have any impact at all on women only spaces, they could include non-binary people if they chose to, or not, just like they exclude cismen, as long as it was a proportional means of achieving a legitimate aim.
 
Race is poorly defined, has no solid base in science, and is largely (if not wholly) a product of society. Gender Identity may be less obvious (or it may not be) but so what? Sexuality may (or may not) be less obvious too, so should we dump those laws? If you want to argue GI will WEAKEN EXISTING PROTECTIONS, you need to put forward an argument, not just hit the caps lock key.

I was emphasising my point which you appear to have missed several times.
 
Here's Lawrence's argument:

Opponents of Blanchard's theory have replied that such counterarguments effectively make Blanchard's typology "unfalsifiable" (Winters, 2008, ¶ 6), because any departures from the theory's predictions can simply be dismissed as attributable to misreporting, measurement errors, sampling problems, or psychiatric comorbidity. As Lawrence (2010a) noted, however, Blanchard's typology is not in principle unfalsifiable: One can imagine more reliable methods of measuring sexual orientation and autogynephilic arousal (e.g., Rönspies et al., 2015) that could eliminate reliance on questionable self-report measures and contribute to the resolution of disputed issues. For the present, however, disagreements concerning the explanation of departures from the predictions of Blanchard's autogynephilia-based typology remain unresolved.​

Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism: Concepts and Controversies
So it might be falsifiable, but it isnt yet.
 
Here's Lawrence's argument:

Opponents of Blanchard's theory have replied that such counterarguments effectively make Blanchard's typology "unfalsifiable" (Winters, 2008, ¶ 6), because any departures from the theory's predictions can simply be dismissed as attributable to misreporting, measurement errors, sampling problems, or psychiatric comorbidity. As Lawrence (2010a) noted, however, Blanchard's typology is not in principle unfalsifiable: One can imagine more reliable methods of measuring sexual orientation and autogynephilic arousal (e.g., Rönspies et al., 2015) that could eliminate reliance on questionable self-report measures and contribute to the resolution of disputed issues. For the present, however, disagreements concerning the explanation of departures from the predictions of Blanchard's autogynephilia-based typology remain unresolved.​

Autogynephilia and the Typology of Male-to-Female Transsexualism: Concepts and Controversies
Thanks
 
Describing AGP as a 'sexual fetish' doesn't help those who live with this. Apropos children, I referred you to a post on my website looking at how gender non-conformity in young children (which is linked to later homosexuality) appears to be interpreted as the child being transgender. The children who later become homosexual would, if they transition, be homosexual not autogynephilic transsexual. Note I am not saying either is more valid, and I am not saying either are 'true trans'.

Okay, you mean Bailey's essay. I read it, it's pure speculation, no evidence offered at all for the presence of autogynephilia in children, just a hunch. And the evidence-free assertion that it's not just sex, but that transwomen are romantically and emotionally attracted to themselves as woman just strikes me as daft. How many m2f transgender people have ever reported this?

As for the idea that androphilic transsexuals are 'extreme' homosexuals, well that's equally evidence free.
 
I think the idea of autogynephilia and the two-type taxonomy is clever. In particular I think the mutually exclusive/collectively exhaustive characteristic of the typology is very clever. Blanchard took many decades of other's work a gave an insightful way of understanding it.

I don't see you engaging with the substance of the argument, which is 'transsexual males fall into two categories differentiated by sexual orientation'. This is supported by neurological evidence.

A Review of the Status of Brain Structure Research in Transsexualism

I thought you rejected any biological basis for transsexuality. Or are you saying there's a biological basis for homosexuality, and androphilic transsexuals, but not gynephilic transsexuals who are just perverts in love with themselves.

Let me guess, I got it wrong, you're not autogynephile yourself are you, you're one of the 'proper' transsexuals who likes men.
 
Let me guess, I got it wrong, you're not autogynephile yourself are you, you're one of the 'proper' transsexuals who likes men.

They said the opposite on the last page.

Note I am not saying either is more valid, and I am not saying either are 'true trans'.

Your persistent dishonest characterisation of anyone who disagrees with you is a bar to meaningful discussion.

And, for the record, I think MY is wrong. But I'm not sue the value of engagging with them on these points. Compassion seems a more fruitful avenue than science or philosophy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom