5 ms·

> Additionally, Ray Blanchard, an academic who believes transgenderism is caused by "autogynephilia"/"autoandrophilia" (i.e. a sexual fetish caused by attractio

> Additionally, Ray Blanchard, an academic who believes transgenderism is caused by "autogynephilia"/"autoandrophilia" (i.e. a sexual fetish caused by attraction to oneself as the desired gender), was a member of the committee who decided the DSM-V definition.

jamesrcole 7y ago
That is not evidence for the claim "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community."
- danharaj 7y ago
  If you understood who Ray Blanchard is you would understand that it is. Insofar as a negative can have supporting evidence.
  - jamesrcole 7y ago
    [EDIT: do the people downvoting this care to explain why they disagree with it? Just because one person was involved is not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment. Nor is it evidence that there was no harassment. If you disagree, why?] His role and behavior is independent of whether there was harassment of academics from people. He may have had that role and either one of these three options could possibly have happened: 1) no harassment of academics from people 2) some harassment 3) a lot of harassment. To claim that Blanchard’s involvement is evidence that there was no harassment, you’d have to demonstrate that somehow that involvement is incompatible with 2) or 3).
    - joshuamorton 7y ago
      The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy.
      - jamesrcole 7y ago
        > The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy. hsyqiwgx wrote "The trans community lobbied and bothered academics ... until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine". sterlind replied "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community." The claim that both of these people were talking about, concerned academics being harassed and as a result being scared off. And just because that one person was involved, doesn't mean that other people weren't scared off.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        I'll just note you're only asking one side of this argument for any validation of their claims. And that side has provided more validation than the other.
        jamesrcole 7y ago
        That is not true. What I did was not simply asking a person to back up a claim they made. If that was the case you could call me out for inconsistency. I was responding to a person who had claimed to have provided some evidence that they had not actually given. I responded to a sentence that was presenting a claim, and also implying that the evidence for their claim was given earlier in their comment, which I did not believe was the case. That sentence was: "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community". That 'So no' implies that the evidence for the claim has been given earlier in their comment. I did not see any evidence in their comment, so I asked if they could provide some.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        Then they did, and you've called that evidence unconvincing. But it is still evidence. More than the zero you've gotten (or requested) from the original claim.
    - Dylan16807 7y ago
      > not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. (You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse.)
      - jamesrcole 7y ago
        > If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. Just because one person wasn't scared off doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of harassment. I don't know whether they did or didn't, but the fact that they weren't scared off is not evidence they didn't get lots of harassment. And that doesn't mean other people weren't scared off. Different people have different tolerances for harassment, and differing degrees to which they want to be involved in a particular matter. > You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse. This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments.
        Dylan16807 7y ago
        "academics [...] weren't scared off" isn't a claim that not a single person was scared off, but that as a group they were not scared off. If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence. > This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments. I'm explaining why he's one of the most extreme members of that group, which is needed to support my main point.
        jamesrcole 7y ago
        That one person wasn't scared off provides no evidence about how many other people were or weren't scared off. That he might be the worst has zero bearing on this.

jamesrcole 7y ago

That is not evidence for the claim "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community."

danharaj 7y ago
If you understood who Ray Blanchard is you would understand that it is. Insofar as a negative can have supporting evidence.
- jamesrcole 7y ago
  [EDIT: do the people downvoting this care to explain why they disagree with it? Just because one person was involved is not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment. Nor is it evidence that there was no harassment. If you disagree, why?] His role and behavior is independent of whether there was harassment of academics from people. He may have had that role and either one of these three options could possibly have happened: 1) no harassment of academics from people 2) some harassment 3) a lot of harassment. To claim that Blanchard’s involvement is evidence that there was no harassment, you’d have to demonstrate that somehow that involvement is incompatible with 2) or 3).
  - joshuamorton 7y ago
    The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy.
    - jamesrcole 7y ago
      > The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy. hsyqiwgx wrote "The trans community lobbied and bothered academics ... until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine". sterlind replied "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community." The claim that both of these people were talking about, concerned academics being harassed and as a result being scared off. And just because that one person was involved, doesn't mean that other people weren't scared off.
      - joshuamorton 7y ago
        I'll just note you're only asking one side of this argument for any validation of their claims. And that side has provided more validation than the other.
        jamesrcole 7y ago
        That is not true. What I did was not simply asking a person to back up a claim they made. If that was the case you could call me out for inconsistency. I was responding to a person who had claimed to have provided some evidence that they had not actually given. I responded to a sentence that was presenting a claim, and also implying that the evidence for their claim was given earlier in their comment, which I did not believe was the case. That sentence was: "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community". That 'So no' implies that the evidence for the claim has been given earlier in their comment. I did not see any evidence in their comment, so I asked if they could provide some.
        joshuamorton 7y ago
        Then they did, and you've called that evidence unconvincing. But it is still evidence. More than the zero you've gotten (or requested) from the original claim.
  - Dylan16807 7y ago
    > not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. (You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse.)
    - jamesrcole 7y ago
      > If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. Just because one person wasn't scared off doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of harassment. I don't know whether they did or didn't, but the fact that they weren't scared off is not evidence they didn't get lots of harassment. And that doesn't mean other people weren't scared off. Different people have different tolerances for harassment, and differing degrees to which they want to be involved in a particular matter. > You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse. This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments.
      - Dylan16807 7y ago
        "academics [...] weren't scared off" isn't a claim that not a single person was scared off, but that as a group they were not scared off. If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence. > This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments. I'm explaining why he's one of the most extreme members of that group, which is needed to support my main point.
        jamesrcole 7y ago
        That one person wasn't scared off provides no evidence about how many other people were or weren't scared off. That he might be the worst has zero bearing on this.