6 ms·

Playing nice hasn't worked

9 points by fffs 3y ago

mrkeen 3y ago
I think there's another reaction to the "I've been cancelled" article (other than "no, you haven't") which is: "What is your point (which allegedly got you cancelled)?" That's why these articles are tedious. Is your point that you alone can stare down medical science and proclaim that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and aromatase deficiency don't exist? Just say that so we can get on with ignoring you.
- lusus_naturae 3y ago
  I guess the other question is what does she want? She is clearly getting media attention still (or does the linked article not exist?). We know from various shitshows in the U.S. that people listen to, respect and follow the kind of attitude and opinion she espouses. So what would someone like her find satisfying? The problem with people who cannot find a reasonable way to live with "the other" or an out-group (to them) is that there will always be another target for them to choose, i.e. it's not any one group in particular which is a problem for them. So if trans people didn't exist, this same person would be talking about something else. For people such as this, the problem is their personality (so I guess they're deviated on some genetic level), which I guess is too harsh to say? I don't know.
  - fffs 3y ago
    [dead]
    - lusus_naturae 3y ago
      I don't understand the reason for putting gender identity in quotes? There are structural differences in the brains of cis and trans gendered people which result in their respective behaviour and outcomes [1]. Womens rights are trans rights at a philosophical and ideological level, and this tactic of using "protect the women" is unfortunately used by the same people who at times act against women rights [2]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3 [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psj.12484 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psj.12484
      - fffs 3y ago
        I placed it in quotes because I see it as a disputed concept that not everyone considers to be valid, and which doesn't even have a consistent definition amongst those who do. The main problem being that it conflates knowledge of one's own sex with a desire to be the opposite sex. The brain scan research, like the paper you cited, seeks neural correlates for a very strong desire to be the opposite sex, such a strong desire that the subject seeks medical treatment to change their appearance - which isn't really the same thing as having a 'gender identity'. Interestingly, homosexuality is also linked to sex-atypical brain structures, and in studies where this factor is controlled for, the structural differences seen in brains of gender dysphorics all but disappear. Curiously, what is seen instead are alterations in brain networks that mediate body perception, somewhat like what is seen in anorexics (though, by contrast, we don't label them as having a dissonant 'size identity' or anything like that). I see women's rights as being distinct from and in conflict with 'trans rights', and don't really understand what you mean when you say they are the same on an ideological and philosophical level - could you explain further please?
        lusus_naturae 3y ago
        > Interestingly, homosexuality is also linked to sex-atypical brain structures, and in studies where this factor is controlled for, the structural differences seen in brains of gender dysphorics all but disappear. I think you're talking about [1]? I am not sure it agrees with your quoted point, unless you're referring to something else? > Given that Cth, white matter integrity (indexed by FA values), and resting state functional connectivity can undergo plastic changes, it is difficult to draw definite conclusions as to whether the observed characteristics among persons with GD were innate or acquired. Distinguishing this would require longitudinal studies, optimally from childhood onwards, which was beyond the scope of the present research. Nonetheless, there are reasons to believe that at least some of our observations reflect underlying factors rather than the effects of GD. One reason is that other conditions involving body rumination, such as anorexia nervosa (AN) and body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), are not associated with similar fronto-occipital changes. Although BDD, like GD, has an early onset and is also related to the congruity between body and identity, persons with BDD have been found to display thinner rather than thicker frontal and temporal cortices compared with controls (Buchanan et al. 2013). Among subjects with AN, compared with controls, their cortex has been found to be “thinner” bilaterally in the superior parietal gyrus and in the right inferior parietal and superior frontal gyri, and their FA values found to be lower for the left corona radiate, the posterior thalamic radiation, and the left superior longitudinal fasciculus, but not in the IOF tract, as in the present study (Via et al. 2014; Fuglset et al. 2016). [1] https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/29/5/2084/5062356 https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/29/5/2084/5062356 Regarding your question: if you consider the evidence and conclude that trans women are women, then trans right = womens right.
- fffs 3y ago
  > Is your point that you alone can stare down medical science and proclaim that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and aromatase deficiency don't exist? That's not what she is saying at all.
  - mrkeen 3y ago
    No, I don't expect so. Writing those words would mean she took her head out of the sand long enough to see if modern medicine says "oh yeah guys there's only 100% men and 100% women, nothing else." Has she made any statement about whether she'd back down from her position if her chromosomes turned out not to meet her expectations?
    - fffs 3y ago
      She's said a fair bit on the topic of DSDs, for example these tweets: - https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1488064619428122625 https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1488064619428122625 - https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1496033865047150593 https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1496033865047150593 - https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1659205823565008897 https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1659205823565008897 And in her book, mostly relating to category eligibility policy in competitive sports. Also in some interviews, along the same lines as the above.
- spaceprison 3y ago
  Her book may try to make that point, but the point of article is seems to be more meta than that. There are people, like this author, the journalists that interviewed her and the venues who booked her, that believe the open public discussion of ideas is of value to society. What the author experienced was that discourse featuring opposing positions of ideologically popular topics seem to be subject to silencing/censorship. By spiking articles, canceling forums and shelving interviews this author believes that something of value is being taken away from society.
  - cauch 3y ago
    Isn't that exactly GP's point? She says: they decided to not invite me to the debate, therefore something of value is being taken away from society. GP says: she has demonstrated that she keeps supporting pseudo-science that has been already debunked, the reason people stops wanting her to participate to debate is therefore most probably because she has demonstrated she does not bring anything of value. Even if you argue that a specific pseudo-scientific theory she supports is not the specific point for one specific debate (which is itself arguable: in general, those pseudo-scientific theories are supporting pillar on which the rest of her work lies), this is still a red flag: defending pseudo-science even after the flaws were raised is not "just a mistake", it demonstrates that the individual is not able to do basic logic and to follow an unbiased approach. If part of what she said is correct, then there should be plenty of people who defend these correct parts while not at the same time defending the pseudo-science. If the large majority appears to also defend the pseudo-science, then it is a very good clue that these parts themselves are usually abandoned when considered by someone who has a rational approach.
    - fffs 3y ago
      She's not stating anything pseudoscientific, nor anything that has been debunked. Quite the opposite really. Her work is meticulously well researched and she takes a satisfyingly rational and critical approach in elucidating her viewpoints. That commenter above that you refer to is quite simply incorrect. I suspect he's not read any of her work and is speaking only from artefacts of his own imagination.
chownie 3y ago
From reading the article I'm not that shocked that people aren't having her back and that they're not broadcasting her views, if her own description of her behaviour makes her sound this abrasive how did other people perceive her?

9 points by fffs 3y ago

I think there's another reaction to the "I've been cancelled" article (other than "no, you haven't") which is: "What is your point (which allegedly got you cancelled)?" That's why these articles are tedious. Is your point that you alone can stare down medical science and proclaim that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and aromatase deficiency don't exist? Just say that so we can get on with ignoring you.

lusus_naturae 3y ago
I guess the other question is what does she want? She is clearly getting media attention still (or does the linked article not exist?). We know from various shitshows in the U.S. that people listen to, respect and follow the kind of attitude and opinion she espouses. So what would someone like her find satisfying? The problem with people who cannot find a reasonable way to live with "the other" or an out-group (to them) is that there will always be another target for them to choose, i.e. it's not any one group in particular which is a problem for them. So if trans people didn't exist, this same person would be talking about something else. For people such as this, the problem is their personality (so I guess they're deviated on some genetic level), which I guess is too harsh to say? I don't know.
- fffs 3y ago
  [dead]
  - lusus_naturae 3y ago
    I don't understand the reason for putting gender identity in quotes? There are structural differences in the brains of cis and trans gendered people which result in their respective behaviour and outcomes [1]. Womens rights are trans rights at a philosophical and ideological level, and this tactic of using "protect the women" is unfortunately used by the same people who at times act against women rights [2]. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41386-020-0666-3 [2] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psj.12484 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/psj.12484
    - fffs 3y ago
      I placed it in quotes because I see it as a disputed concept that not everyone considers to be valid, and which doesn't even have a consistent definition amongst those who do. The main problem being that it conflates knowledge of one's own sex with a desire to be the opposite sex. The brain scan research, like the paper you cited, seeks neural correlates for a very strong desire to be the opposite sex, such a strong desire that the subject seeks medical treatment to change their appearance - which isn't really the same thing as having a 'gender identity'. Interestingly, homosexuality is also linked to sex-atypical brain structures, and in studies where this factor is controlled for, the structural differences seen in brains of gender dysphorics all but disappear. Curiously, what is seen instead are alterations in brain networks that mediate body perception, somewhat like what is seen in anorexics (though, by contrast, we don't label them as having a dissonant 'size identity' or anything like that). I see women's rights as being distinct from and in conflict with 'trans rights', and don't really understand what you mean when you say they are the same on an ideological and philosophical level - could you explain further please?
      - lusus_naturae 3y ago
        > Interestingly, homosexuality is also linked to sex-atypical brain structures, and in studies where this factor is controlled for, the structural differences seen in brains of gender dysphorics all but disappear. I think you're talking about [1]? I am not sure it agrees with your quoted point, unless you're referring to something else? > Given that Cth, white matter integrity (indexed by FA values), and resting state functional connectivity can undergo plastic changes, it is difficult to draw definite conclusions as to whether the observed characteristics among persons with GD were innate or acquired. Distinguishing this would require longitudinal studies, optimally from childhood onwards, which was beyond the scope of the present research. Nonetheless, there are reasons to believe that at least some of our observations reflect underlying factors rather than the effects of GD. One reason is that other conditions involving body rumination, such as anorexia nervosa (AN) and body dysmorphic disorder (BDD), are not associated with similar fronto-occipital changes. Although BDD, like GD, has an early onset and is also related to the congruity between body and identity, persons with BDD have been found to display thinner rather than thicker frontal and temporal cortices compared with controls (Buchanan et al. 2013). Among subjects with AN, compared with controls, their cortex has been found to be “thinner” bilaterally in the superior parietal gyrus and in the right inferior parietal and superior frontal gyri, and their FA values found to be lower for the left corona radiate, the posterior thalamic radiation, and the left superior longitudinal fasciculus, but not in the IOF tract, as in the present study (Via et al. 2014; Fuglset et al. 2016). [1] https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/29/5/2084/5062356 https://academic.oup.com/cercor/article/29/5/2084/5062356 Regarding your question: if you consider the evidence and conclude that trans women are women, then trans right = womens right.
fffs 3y ago
> Is your point that you alone can stare down medical science and proclaim that congenital adrenal hyperplasia and aromatase deficiency don't exist? That's not what she is saying at all.
- mrkeen 3y ago
  No, I don't expect so. Writing those words would mean she took her head out of the sand long enough to see if modern medicine says "oh yeah guys there's only 100% men and 100% women, nothing else." Has she made any statement about whether she'd back down from her position if her chromosomes turned out not to meet her expectations?
  - fffs 3y ago
    She's said a fair bit on the topic of DSDs, for example these tweets: - https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1488064619428122625 https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1488064619428122625 - https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1496033865047150593 https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1496033865047150593 - https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1659205823565008897 https://twitter.com/HJoyceGender/status/1659205823565008897 And in her book, mostly relating to category eligibility policy in competitive sports. Also in some interviews, along the same lines as the above.
spaceprison 3y ago
Her book may try to make that point, but the point of article is seems to be more meta than that. There are people, like this author, the journalists that interviewed her and the venues who booked her, that believe the open public discussion of ideas is of value to society. What the author experienced was that discourse featuring opposing positions of ideologically popular topics seem to be subject to silencing/censorship. By spiking articles, canceling forums and shelving interviews this author believes that something of value is being taken away from society.
- cauch 3y ago
  Isn't that exactly GP's point? She says: they decided to not invite me to the debate, therefore something of value is being taken away from society. GP says: she has demonstrated that she keeps supporting pseudo-science that has been already debunked, the reason people stops wanting her to participate to debate is therefore most probably because she has demonstrated she does not bring anything of value. Even if you argue that a specific pseudo-scientific theory she supports is not the specific point for one specific debate (which is itself arguable: in general, those pseudo-scientific theories are supporting pillar on which the rest of her work lies), this is still a red flag: defending pseudo-science even after the flaws were raised is not "just a mistake", it demonstrates that the individual is not able to do basic logic and to follow an unbiased approach. If part of what she said is correct, then there should be plenty of people who defend these correct parts while not at the same time defending the pseudo-science. If the large majority appears to also defend the pseudo-science, then it is a very good clue that these parts themselves are usually abandoned when considered by someone who has a rational approach.
  - fffs 3y ago
    She's not stating anything pseudoscientific, nor anything that has been debunked. Quite the opposite really. Her work is meticulously well researched and she takes a satisfyingly rational and critical approach in elucidating her viewpoints. That commenter above that you refer to is quite simply incorrect. I suspect he's not read any of her work and is speaking only from artefacts of his own imagination.

chownie 3y ago

From reading the article I'm not that shocked that people aren't having her back and that they're not broadcasting her views, if her own description of her behaviour makes her sound this abrasive how did other people perceive her?