3 ms·

The HSTS / AGP dichotomy is not taken seriously among trans people or care providers, don't listen to this person.

popcalc 2y ago
[flagged]
wizzwizz4 2y ago
In the post-Karl Popper academic landscape, it's hard to beat the absurdity to explanatory-power ratio of Sigmund Freud's "penis envy", but Ray Blanchard's ravings about trans people are certainly a contender. The "science experiments" he ran to "support" his "theories" aren't quite Philip Zimbardo levels of unethical quackery, but I'm still not sure how attaching electrodes to people's genitals and making them watch porn is a sensible way to categorise anyone, even ignoring the fudging required to make his experiments show the "correct" results.
- popcalc 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Any argument against zodiac (birth) signs would apply equally well here. In fact, zodiac signs survive criticism better, because at least they have well-defined boundary conditions. What kind of "fetishistic transvestism" do I have if I'm a sex-repulsed aromantic trans woman?
    - popcalc 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        So it fits "essentially every individual", except the example I just gave? Come on, even Freudian psychoanalysis has a better success rate than that. > the excruciating process of transition I have only ever seen people describe transition with words like "excruciating" for two reasons: • Social barriers, e.g. medical gatekeeping, transphobic bigotry. • Believing in the Blanchard or 4chan classification systems, and constantly judging themselves accordingly. Please don't hold onto this so tight. It's not healthy, and there's zero evidence that it's even remotely true.
        popcalc 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 2y ago
        Could you please stop taking this thread down a generic tangent, which is inevitably a generic flamewar tangent? This is a Show HN thread about t4t's new forum. "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - LordDragonfang 2y ago
    https://aella.substack.com/p/everyone-has-autogynephilia https://aella.substack.com/p/everyone-has-autogynephilia If you want to base your understanding of the world on data rather than anecdata, here.
    - popcalc 2y ago
      [flagged]
      - LordDragonfang 2y ago
        > we can move on Considering you've replied to 3 different threads starting the same flame war (and are apparently unwilling to accept actual data), I am very skeptical of your ability to move on.
      - deleted 2y ago
        [deleted]
- mmooss 2y ago
  > In the post-Karl Popper academic landscape OT: What do you mean by that? I know Popper, I can guess what you mean, but what do you mean?
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    I mean that scientific theories nowadays are supposed to make testable predictions, and when those predictions consistently fail, you have to say "okay, this theory is not correct". If your theory is capable of "explaining" every possible piece of evidence, it's not a scientific theory. (Some people would go further than Karl Popper, saying that it's not even meaningful.) I'm pretty sure this is in The Open Society and Its Enemies, but I can't remember. I do know that it's in this webcomic: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/285 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/285
    - mmooss 2y ago
      Thanks. Not to dive too far into the weeds ... but I'm wondering if there's something I misunderstand about Popper: > If your theory is capable of "explaining" every possible piece of evidence, it's not a scientific theory. Do you mean, if your theory is not falsifiable? If your falsifiable theory is not (yet) falsified, if you magically know it never will be falsified, isn't it still a theory? (If it's just a matter of wording on an Internet comment, then sorry to bother you - I don't mean to play gotcha.)
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        I've misused the word "possible": I meant to say that if the theory is equally-capable of "explaining" two mutually-incompatible states of affairs, it does not actually have the explanatory power that all scientific theories must have. Which, yes, I think "falsifiable" is the correct word for that. (Although, you'll note that my explanation of "falsifiable" is not precisely correct. I think I've convinced myself that there is no logically-precise definition of "falsifiable", and that it inherently leans on some intuitive notion of "possibly-falsifying evidence" which we have to take for granted, like philosophical induction.) However, that was itself me being lazy, because Blanchard's typology does make concrete predictions about what sorts of people exist. The assertion that people can be classified into "attracted to women" and "not attracted to women" is refuted by the Kinsey Reports (and many better studies besides); the assertion that being trans is a sex thing is refuted by the existence of certain ace trans people; the assertion that transition is about imitation is refuted by the existence of certain non-binary people… Of course, Ray Blanchard himself bolts on new categories whenever he can't fudge the analysis to fit a pre-existing conclusion – last I checked, he had around 10 categories – but most adherents treat the original two categories as dogma. (The lengths to which people will go for a gender binary…) Really, I should say that if you're cis and relying on thought experiments, Blanchard's typology is unfalsifiable: you will simply not be able to observe any evidence that refutes it. I myself (not then having much contact with out trans people (if we discount Reddit)) had to do a lot of introspection (could I rule out self-deception? wishful thinking? how?) before I concluded that either my internal subjective experience refuted the typology (and its variants), or I was too insane to be capable of reasoning. This tendency towards solipsism did not do me many favours (and was ultimately quite harmful, for reasons I will not discuss here), but it did at least prepare me for the many other academics who talk out of their arses about things they have no legitimate claim to expertise in, save for being among the first academics to study it. (Or, in Ray Blanchard's case, among the first academics to study it after the Nazi purge.)

[flagged]

In the post-Karl Popper academic landscape, it's hard to beat the absurdity to explanatory-power ratio of Sigmund Freud's "penis envy", but Ray Blanchard's ravings about trans people are certainly a contender. The "science experiments" he ran to "support" his "theories" aren't quite Philip Zimbardo levels of unethical quackery, but I'm still not sure how attaching electrodes to people's genitals and making them watch porn is a sensible way to categorise anyone, even ignoring the fudging required to make his experiments show the "correct" results.

popcalc 2y ago
[flagged]
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Any argument against zodiac (birth) signs would apply equally well here. In fact, zodiac signs survive criticism better, because at least they have well-defined boundary conditions. What kind of "fetishistic transvestism" do I have if I'm a sex-repulsed aromantic trans woman?
  - popcalc 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      So it fits "essentially every individual", except the example I just gave? Come on, even Freudian psychoanalysis has a better success rate than that. > the excruciating process of transition I have only ever seen people describe transition with words like "excruciating" for two reasons: • Social barriers, e.g. medical gatekeeping, transphobic bigotry. • Believing in the Blanchard or 4chan classification systems, and constantly judging themselves accordingly. Please don't hold onto this so tight. It's not healthy, and there's zero evidence that it's even remotely true.
      - popcalc 2y ago
        [flagged]
        dang 2y ago
        Could you please stop taking this thread down a generic tangent, which is inevitably a generic flamewar tangent? This is a Show HN thread about t4t's new forum. "Eschew flamebait. Avoid generic tangents." - https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
- LordDragonfang 2y ago
  https://aella.substack.com/p/everyone-has-autogynephilia https://aella.substack.com/p/everyone-has-autogynephilia If you want to base your understanding of the world on data rather than anecdata, here.
  - popcalc 2y ago
    [flagged]
    - LordDragonfang 2y ago
      > we can move on Considering you've replied to 3 different threads starting the same flame war (and are apparently unwilling to accept actual data), I am very skeptical of your ability to move on.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
mmooss 2y ago
> In the post-Karl Popper academic landscape OT: What do you mean by that? I know Popper, I can guess what you mean, but what do you mean?
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  I mean that scientific theories nowadays are supposed to make testable predictions, and when those predictions consistently fail, you have to say "okay, this theory is not correct". If your theory is capable of "explaining" every possible piece of evidence, it's not a scientific theory. (Some people would go further than Karl Popper, saying that it's not even meaningful.) I'm pretty sure this is in The Open Society and Its Enemies, but I can't remember. I do know that it's in this webcomic: https://existentialcomics.com/comic/285 https://existentialcomics.com/comic/285
  - mmooss 2y ago
    Thanks. Not to dive too far into the weeds ... but I'm wondering if there's something I misunderstand about Popper: > If your theory is capable of "explaining" every possible piece of evidence, it's not a scientific theory. Do you mean, if your theory is not falsifiable? If your falsifiable theory is not (yet) falsified, if you magically know it never will be falsified, isn't it still a theory? (If it's just a matter of wording on an Internet comment, then sorry to bother you - I don't mean to play gotcha.)
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      I've misused the word "possible": I meant to say that if the theory is equally-capable of "explaining" two mutually-incompatible states of affairs, it does not actually have the explanatory power that all scientific theories must have. Which, yes, I think "falsifiable" is the correct word for that. (Although, you'll note that my explanation of "falsifiable" is not precisely correct. I think I've convinced myself that there is no logically-precise definition of "falsifiable", and that it inherently leans on some intuitive notion of "possibly-falsifying evidence" which we have to take for granted, like philosophical induction.) However, that was itself me being lazy, because Blanchard's typology does make concrete predictions about what sorts of people exist. The assertion that people can be classified into "attracted to women" and "not attracted to women" is refuted by the Kinsey Reports (and many better studies besides); the assertion that being trans is a sex thing is refuted by the existence of certain ace trans people; the assertion that transition is about imitation is refuted by the existence of certain non-binary people… Of course, Ray Blanchard himself bolts on new categories whenever he can't fudge the analysis to fit a pre-existing conclusion – last I checked, he had around 10 categories – but most adherents treat the original two categories as dogma. (The lengths to which people will go for a gender binary…) Really, I should say that if you're cis and relying on thought experiments, Blanchard's typology is unfalsifiable: you will simply not be able to observe any evidence that refutes it. I myself (not then having much contact with out trans people (if we discount Reddit)) had to do a lot of introspection (could I rule out self-deception? wishful thinking? how?) before I concluded that either my internal subjective experience refuted the typology (and its variants), or I was too insane to be capable of reasoning. This tendency towards solipsism did not do me many favours (and was ultimately quite harmful, for reasons I will not discuss here), but it did at least prepare me for the many other academics who talk out of their arses about things they have no legitimate claim to expertise in, save for being among the first academics to study it. (Or, in Ray Blanchard's case, among the first academics to study it after the Nazi purge.)