6 ms·

I agree with this completely. But the Heritage Foundation, which Kay Coles James represents, isn't a conservative dissident acting in good faith. It actively mi

• leereeves 8y ago
  Declaring a scientific consensus before serious research has even begun renders the word "science" meaningless. Scientists haven't developed a test for transgenderism, or even identified a measurable difference, and what little research has been done comes from the politicized and not-at-all-rigorous "social sciences" whose reliability is questionable at best. There won't be an evidence-based scientific consensus (as opposed to an artificial consensus enforced by excluding anyone who disagrees with the party line) about transgenderism any time soon.
  • tfehring 8y ago
    > Scientists haven't developed a test for transgenderism Transgenderism is a broader term and is often characterized by gender dysphoria. Aside from that, this is false. The American Psychiatric Association defines diagnostic criteria for gender dysphoria in the DSM-5, and they're listed on Wikipedia [0]. It isn't currently (and may never be) diagnosable by, say, a blood test or MRI in the same way that physical ailments often are, but the same is true of psychiatric diagnoses for many other well-established conditions. > or even identified a measurable difference It's well-established that a significant number of people meet the diagnostic criteria in [0], and that hormone therapy frequently results in substantial positive outcomes for those people [1] [2]. There's some evidence that the same is true of sex reassignment surgery [3], though the consensus naturally isn't as strong because sample sizes are smaller and double-blind trials aren't viable. > what little research has been done comes from the politicized and not-at-all-rigorous "social sciences" whose reliability is questionable at best If the research is that unreliable, a well-funded, properly motivated organization like the Heritage Foundation should be able to identify methodological weaknesses or other flaws in the literature, instead of sponsoring unscientific drivel from people with PhDs in fields like "political philosophy." > There won't be an evidence-based scientific consensus (as opposed to an artificial consensus enforced by excluding anyone who disagrees with the party line) about transgenderism any time soon. Can you cite up-to-date, peer-reviewed scientific research that disputes the existence of gender dysphoria or the effectiveness of hormone therapy in treating it? Or even a single researcher with relevant scientific expertise who disputes those points? If not, I'd ask how else you could reasonably define an "evidence-based scientific consensus about transgenderism." Keep in mind that scientific consensus isn't necessarily uncontroversial among laypeople - see, e.g., global warming [4] and the theory of evolution [5]. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Diagnosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_dysphoria#Diagnosis [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21937168 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21937168 [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574768 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23574768 [3] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24344788 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24344788 [4] https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever-global-warming.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/248027/americans-concerned-ever... [5] https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-humans-new-low.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/210956/belief-creationist-view-...
• 0x2AF31DA8 8y ago
  If the outcry in the media were that she had no place on such a committee due to representing an organization which forwards unsound and poorly reasoned arguments, misrepresents the scientific consensus, or similar, then it would be a completely different discussion. Instead, as far as I can tell the objection is to the views she expresses themselves. In particular, she (and others) are painted as abhorrent, openly hostile to trans people, and other such things. I suppose she might actually be? But I looked, and could only find her expressing concerns about restrooms and sports teams. I don't agree with her, but those actually seem like perfectly reasonable questions to ask and not particularly hostile. > or that the transgender acceptance movement is tantamount to "[changing] the definition of women to include men" [3]. That reason isn't liberal bias - it's scientific consensus. Well I suppose that would depend on your definition of women and men, your definition of biological gender, how you think gender relates to gender identity, etc. To be blunt our society doesn't seem to have worked that stuff out yet (despite what many on the far right and the far left would have you believe).
  • tfehring 8y ago
    > In particular, she (and others) are painted as abhorrent, openly hostile to trans people, and other such things. I suppose she might actually be? But I looked, and could only find her expressing concerns about restrooms and sports teams. I'll re-cite [0] from my previous comment. If that's not "openly hostile to trans people" I don't know what is. And referring to trans acceptance as "[changing] the definition of women to include men" might plausibly be unintentionally ignorant in a vacuum, but it's clearly transphobic in the context of the Heritage Foundation's positions more generally. There's room for reasonable discussion on issues like the inclusion of trans folk in competitive athletics. But I don't see a place for pseudoscientific posturing or transphobic rhetoric in that discussion. And not only has the Heritage Foundation demonstrated that it's incapable or unwilling to produce anything more substantial in that area, its willful, bad-faith ignorance of scientific evidence has also made it clear that it's not a reliable contributor to science-based discourse more generally. > Well I suppose that would depend on your definition of women and men, your definition of biological gender, how you think gender relates to gender identity, etc. To be blunt our society doesn't seem to have worked that stuff out yet (despite what many on the far right and the far left would have you believe). I'm not sure that the definition of "biological gender" or the relationship between gender and gender identity are subjective in the way you're insinuating. "Women" and "men" are arguably a bit trickier on paper, but in practice, my impression is that trans-exclusionary usage of those words is virtually always driven by either well-meaning ignorance or deliberate transphobia, not by an educated, good faith difference of opinion on their meaning. In the case of James's comment specifically, I'll reiterate that context matters - I don't think anyone who speaks for the Heritage Foundation can credibly claim either ignorance or good faith on that issue. [0] https://www.heritage.org/gender/event/when-harry-became-sally-responding-the-transgender-moment https://www.heritage.org/gender/event/when-harry-became-sall...
• rjf72 8y ago
  A major issue with this argument is that consensus does not mean right. Take the scientific consensus at one point in time and Earth is the center of the universe, take it at another time and leaded fuel is perfectly safe, at another time and we have phrenology as an accepted and influential science. Even for something much more recent, nearly all of top tier academia in the US was actively in support in involuntary government driven eugenics [1] until some low ranking German soldier and artist by the name of Adolf clearly demonstrated how mind-bogglingly idiotic an idea that was. As an interesting aside, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes famous proclamation legitimizing government driven eugenics, culminating with "The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." [2] has never actually been formally overturned. We simply dropped eugenics thanks to that eccentric German artist. People, obviously including the world's foremost experts on any given topic, invariably form consensus around things that end up ultimately being completely wrong. Of course this does not suggest some sort of truth nihilism. There are of course true and false things, but in fields where there is still plenty of room for debate - trying to censor people because they do simply fall in line with a liminal "consensus" is one of the most completely regressive ideals imaginable. For instance you critique the group for having experts who do not have backgrounds in e.g. psychology. Yet you are certainly aware of the psychology replication crisis. It started with the discovery that some 64% of psychology studies in leading journals could not be replicated! And unlike psychology studies, this discovery can and has been replicated. The replication rate in social psychology is at around 25%. And, again, these studies were from leading journals. Think about what this means. If you read about any study in psychology, or especially in social psychology, you'd generally be far more accurately informed if you assumed that was stated as statistically significant was, in fact, not. "Experts" with backgrounds in psychology, especially social psychology, are the last people you should turn to for anything - except for perhaps how to get bad science published. This is callous, but it's also completely true! The point I make with this is that appealing to some necessity of psychology backgrounds is really more about trying to silence or discredit 'outsider' voices, than an actually useful, let alone, necessary credential. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States [2] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell [3] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis