General transgender discussion thread - Take the tranny related debates here.

[Silence of the Troons]

My impression is the trans party line (if it may be called that) is that autogynephilia does not exist?

Both yes and no. On one hand, troons usually have no qualms admitting that their transition is of a highly sexual nature and that their trans identity revolves around fetishes and stereotypes about women. But on the other hand, heaven forbid that you call it "autogynephilia" and suggest that getting a boner when you put on your favorite pink lace panties doesn't make you female

 

[Non-Expert!]

I'm not talking about older people getting transitioned, I'm talking them pulling a James Younger once public vigilance fades. How many people are really going to fight back against that?

They already have. Boy is more or less saved, and will become a well-adjusted young man, thanks to his father. I think that this case went through the legal machine and some court pulled the right strings, said the right words. Judge's gavel went down, batshit dissolved.

For now at least.

But at this point, evidence does not work in mom's favor, since Luna-tic was, is attending school now, as James. Per his inalienable right, to allow his mind and soul to mature in the biologically intact body, as the Lord intended.

Also another positive, is that in the United States a lot of legal decisions are based on precedent. So when other parents attempt this same maneuver with their kids, the outcome of this legal decision will influence the next case.

I am not sure how it would work out, if 20 years from now James sues for damages, as he was denied the necessary puberty blockers and HRT to become the Queen Elsa he wanted to be.

So to answer your question about people fighting this, you literally have to go on a case by case basis. No, pulling a jihad at a local clinic is not the way things are done. Public vigilance won't fade, in fact folks are getting very upset about it,

 

[jorgoth]

My impression is the trans party line (if it may be called that) is that autogynephilia does not exist?

They'll say whatever they need to say to make their insanity seem acceptable to the plutocrats and upper middle class professionals whose patronage they so desperately seek.

 

[AnOminous]

My impression is the trans party line (if it may be called that) is that autogynephilia does not exist?

Yes, they'll say this 10 minutes after shitposting for hours on end about what gigantic sluts they are, posing in lingerie despite being fat and disgusting, demanding their "girl penis" be sucked, and otherwise acting like Buffalo Bill at every available opportunity.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

My impression is the trans party line (if it may be called that) is that autogynephilia does not exist?

That's what it seems to be. It's not uncommon to find posts saying something like "It's not a fetish, it's gender euphoria" or "cis-women get aroused at the thought of being a woman too so it's totally normal".

 

[Norman B. Normal]

Uh huh. Because "cis" women are always posting to Reddit about how horny they got the first time they stole their sister's underwear out of the hamper and tried it on.

 

[Fistbeard_McThunderaxe]

What's the connection between smug anime avatar people and trans? I see that shit everywhere.

 

[Positron]

What's the connection between smug anime avatar people and trans? I see that shit everywhere.

Anime is one of the gateway drugs of troonhood -- the other is porn. These are also where troons get their concept of femininity.

 

[💗Freddie Freaker💗]

Anime is one of the gateway drugs of troonhood -- the other is porn. These are also where troons get their concept of femininity.

What's the connection between smug anime avatar people and trans? I see that shit everywhere.

Anime has become part of Western nerd culture. Nerds tend to be autistic. Trannies tend to be autistic. Therefore, trannies tend to like anime.

It also has more dickgirls in it than Western media, so trannies feel a connection to it more easily. Right now Felix Argyle is the popular one in trans circles even though in the source material he's just a crossdresser.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

South Dakota bill dies

To the surprise of nobody.

 

[AnOminous]

South Dakota bill dies

To the surprise of nobody.

There are a number of good reasons to oppose the legislation even if you're not particularly troon friendly.

 

[eternal dog mongler]

There are a number of good reasons to oppose the legislation even if you're not particularly troon friendly.

If they had laser-focused on ROGD and a mandatory waiting period for GnRH agonists then it would have gone better, I think.

They were trying to ban stuff that's not even current standard of care, but nobody ever consults me on these things. Oh well.

 

[Ashley Lynne Coulter]

I'm honestly undecided on transmedicalism. I'm not a doctor. That's why I just go with "nonbinary" and try to opt out. It's not try to deny reality, it's just taking the third option. Biologically, I'm female.

Sociologically, I have no idea. Ask me in 10 years and we'll see. Gender is largely a social construct anyway.

 

[Lord Xenu]

Gender is largely a social construct anyway.

In the past, I have considered asking this in the TERF thread. Because this thread has many of the same commenters I may as well ask here since the topic was mentioned.

I know that a number of the people in these threads have strong opinions on this POV. I don't know a whole lot about this and I would be grateful if someone could point me towards something (for and/or against the theory) that I can read that is digestible but contains sound science?

If anyone here wants to weigh in on the topic, I would be interested in reading it. For instance, male birds are often more colorful than female and have evolved elaborate accoutrement (Birds of Paradise are the extreme example) which females of the species use to judge their biological fitness as a mate. To take it one step further a lot of the more flamboyant species have evolved intricate displays (dances?) which are used by the females in a similar manner.

Would someone who agrees with the argument that gender is largely a social construct say that the criteria sexually dimorphic species use to judge the suitability of mates is a social construct? This phenomenon is widespread throughout nature and well-studied, what does the kind of feminism that believes that gender is a social construct say about this kind of thing?

 

[Rat Lord]

Oh boy, a thread I can dump my unwanted opinions on!

As someone who's fiance is trans, who actively trying to live his life as a normal guy, and go undetected, we hate a lot of the community. There are just way too many who are either trending and viewing it as a special club or have confused fetish play for being trans. There's a very narrow criteria to be medically diagnosed with dysphoria, and being born with the condition has about a 1% chance. There's no way in hell a lot of these individuals you see online actually have it.

My fav part about these people's argument is that they deny the physical evidence doctors have proven. And that evidence is that our brain function is different depending on sex, so an FtM's brain scan, it will light up in all the places a man's would and vice versa. Trenders don't like this argument because 'sexism' or whatever.

 

[Lord Xenu]

And that evidence is that our brain function is different depending on sex, so an FtM's brain scan, it will light up in all the places a man's would and vice versa

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the scientific rigour in the methodology of fMRI studies and it would not surprise me if in the future a significant portion of them are called into question. I'm not talking specifically about the ones related to sex and gender, but the entire field. Besides the possible errors in the science, fMRI studies are infamously easy to fudge and we all know that trans advocates in academia (and the media) are insane and probably not above doing basically anything to forward their agenda.

Since a lot of Trans "science" and the arguments presented in mainstream media is from the time period affected, I am not particularly convinced and I think this is why we are now seeing studies that don't line up as well with the narrative (which are immediately shouted down as transphobic causing a chilling effect on the scientific community).

Can we trust statistics in fMRI studies? | PLOS Neuroscience Community

Functional MRI (fMRI) is one of the most celebrated tools in neuroscience. Because of their unique ability to peer directly into the living brain while an organism thinks, feels and behaves, fMRI

blogs.plos.org

Can we trust statistics in fMRI studies? | PLOS Neuroscience Community

archived 15 Feb 2020 14:15:43 UTC

archive.ph

There’s a lot of junk fMRI research out there. Here’s what top neuroscientists want you to know.

It's easy to misrepresent the findings from brain scan studies. Just ask a dead salmon.

www.vox.com

There’s a lot of junk fMRI research out there. Here’s what top neuros…

archived 20 Oct 2019 06:43:56 UTC

archive.ph

Much of what we know about the brain may be wrong: The problem with fMRI

The past decade has brought us jaw-dropping insights about the hidden workings of our brains, in part thanks to a popular brain scan technique called fMRI. But a major new study has revealed that f…

ideas.ted.com

The problem with fMRI |

archived 22 Feb 2017 04:41:26 UTC

archive.ph

Bibliometrics of Cluster Inference, 06/07/16, Neuroimaging Statistics Tips & Tools

Not so much a blog, as updated lists of tips and tricks for neuroimaging analysis.

blogs.warwick.ac.uk

Bibliometrics of Cluster Inference, 06/07/16, Neuroimaging Statistics…

archived 7 Jul 2016 14:24:02 UTC

archive.ph

Has a software bug really called decades of brain imaging research into question?

Over the summer, some headlines suggested that a study highlighting issues in the way we analyse fMRI data renders the technique irretrievably flawed. But the reality is much more nuanced

www.theguardian.com

Has a software bug really called decades of brain imaging research in…

archived 15 Feb 2020 14:17:29 UTC

archive.ph

 

[PBJ Sucks]

I can agree that if you really want to define a man/woman it gets more tricky when it is needed to describe outliers. Those with imperfect biology that is, because we can't just fit them into society as 'it' when sex plays such a huge role outside the bare function of reproduction.

Problem is none of these debates were ever intended to be applied to normal people. It uses normal people to categorize the abnormal. Needing to use guidelines to figure out how to categorize abnormal people is not proof of anything except that there is a normal, and if there were no biologically flawed people there would be no need. If you have a clear answer to the that basic biological question (which organs you are born with) then the answers the the next questions (hormones, body shape, etc) only add adjectives to that first one. Without a good answer to the first one, the process that works for everybody else has failed and needs modifiers to produce a satisfactory result, since the world works off of sex in many legal and societal ways. Trannies are not this.

With tying traits to sex it is again tricky, but only slightly. Sex causes characteristics so it is not unreasonable to generalize, and kind of stupid not to. It's so funny when trannies try to paint asking a baby's gender as asking if they have a penis. Nobody asks that. But revealing secondary things (like boy or girl) will usually lead to assumptions about genitalia, which we all do with literally everybody with a high success rate. It's normal to know what's in a stranger's pants. You see a person and you streamline interactions by assuming facts based on your senses combined with previous knowledge and experience because it works pretty well, and of course that includes those sex based generalizations.

 

[Fistbeard_McThunderaxe]

In the past, I have considered asking this in the TERF thread. Because this thread has many of the same commenters I may as well ask here since the topic was mentioned.

I know that a number of the people in these threads have strong opinions on this POV. I don't know a whole lot about this and I would be grateful if someone could point me towards something (for and/or against the theory) that I can read that is digestible but contains sound science?

If anyone here wants to weigh in on the topic, I would be interested in reading it. For instance, male birds are often more colorful than female and have evolved elaborate accoutrement (Birds of Paradise are the extreme example) which females of the species use to judge their biological fitness as a mate. To take it one step further a lot of the more flamboyant species have evolved intricate displays (dances?) which are used by the females in a similar manner.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=nWfyw51DQfU:144Would someone who agrees with the argument that gender is largely a social construct say that the criteria sexually dimorphic species use to judge the suitability of mates is a social construct? This phenomenon is widespread throughout nature and well-studied, what does the kind of feminism that believes that gender is a social construct say about this kind of thing?

Much like animals, humans become more absurd to convince others to believe in them as time goes on. Animals want stronger, more beautiful genetics for what purpose? Humans are acting on countless levels of irony and dress up like clowns in jizz makeup to get people to pay attention to them. Why?

Psychology and philosophy attempt to explain this, but ultimately we conform to what society and genetics pressure us to do, or else rebel on internet forums that observe others acting like flamboyant birds.

 

[Lord Xenu]

Animals want stronger, more beautiful genetics for what purpose?

I would suggest that a gene's only purpose is to spread genetic information. An animals purpose is to reproduce and ensure the survival of their offspring.

Humans are acting on countless levels of irony and dress up like clowns in jizz makeup to get people to pay attention to them. Why?

Humans are part of the animal kingdom, arguably the pinnacle of evolution and in a sense the ultimate answer to "why?" is to reproduce.

Psychology and philosophy attempt to explain this, but ultimately we conform to what society and genetics pressure us to do, or else rebel on internet forums that observe others acting like flamboyant birds.

I don't believe that the answers to sex and or gender can be answered by philosophy. This biology and behaviour has been with us since before the dawn of man and I have a very hard time with the argument that gender is "largely a social construct". I'm not well-read on the topic though, and I'm willing to listen to other people's arguments. I am not even certain if the definition of "gender" that I am working with coincides with that of the people who argue that it is a social construct. Although, I think that the bulk of it can be answered through the work of fields like Evolutionary Psychology.

To be clear, I do believe that philosophy is important and that there are answers to some of the big questions available there. I just don't think it's super relevant to questions about sex or gender. I'm also not arguing that humankind is nothing more than a machine to spread genetics. I believe that when people began to communicate and come together to live in units larger than a single family, we became more than the sum of its parts. That is why I am even willing to listen to the argument that gender might be a social construct.


*As I was typing this I was reminded of a top-notch lecture series I watched a few years ago by Dr. Robert Sapolsky available here:

Human Behavioral Biology with Prof. Robert Sapolsky at Stanford University - YouTube

www.youtube.com

 

[Rat Lord]

There has been quite a bit of discussion on the scientific rigour in the methodology of fMRI studies and it would not surprise me if in the future a significant portion of them are called into question. I'm not talking specifically about the ones related to sex and gender, but the entire field. Besides the possible errors in the science, fMRI studies are infamously easy to fudge and we all know that trans advocates in academia (and the media) are insane and probably not above doing basically anything to forward their agenda.

Since a lot of Trans "science" and the arguments presented in mainstream media is from the time period affected, I am not particularly convinced and I think this is why we are now seeing studies that don't line up as well with the narrative (which are immediately shouted down as transphobic causing a chilling effect on the scientific community).

Can we trust statistics in fMRI studies? | PLOS Neuroscience Community

Functional MRI (fMRI) is one of the most celebrated tools in neuroscience. Because of their unique ability to peer directly into the living brain while an organism thinks, feels and behaves, fMRI

blogs.plos.org

Can we trust statistics in fMRI studies? | PLOS Neuroscience Community

archived 15 Feb 2020 14:15:43 UTC

archive.ph

There’s a lot of junk fMRI research out there. Here’s what top neuroscientists want you to know.

It's easy to misrepresent the findings from brain scan studies. Just ask a dead salmon.

www.vox.com

There’s a lot of junk fMRI research out there. Here’s what top neuros…

archived 20 Oct 2019 06:43:56 UTC

archive.ph

Much of what we know about the brain may be wrong: The problem with fMRI

The past decade has brought us jaw-dropping insights about the hidden workings of our brains, in part thanks to a popular brain scan technique called fMRI. But a major new study has revealed that f…

ideas.ted.com

The problem with fMRI |

archived 22 Feb 2017 04:41:26 UTC

archive.ph

Bibliometrics of Cluster Inference, 06/07/16, Neuroimaging Statistics Tips & Tools

Not so much a blog, as updated lists of tips and tricks for neuroimaging analysis.

blogs.warwick.ac.uk

Bibliometrics of Cluster Inference, 06/07/16, Neuroimaging Statistics…

archived 7 Jul 2016 14:24:02 UTC

archive.ph

Has a software bug really called decades of brain imaging research into question?

Over the summer, some headlines suggested that a study highlighting issues in the way we analyse fMRI data renders the technique irretrievably flawed. But the reality is much more nuanced

www.theguardian.com

Has a software bug really called decades of brain imaging research in…

archived 15 Feb 2020 14:17:29 UTC

archive.ph

These were actually an interesting read and I thank you for the info that I didn't have before!