PacifistAg said:

---

chuckd said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

chuckd said:

---

PacifistAg said:

---

chuckd said:

---

Quote:

---

Nope. Not remotely true. Probably best not to listen to someone on this topic when they don't even know what "transition" means.

---

I believe in another thread you and I discussed what it means (may have been this thread). That it was a combination of hormone therapy, your legal name/sex change, your surgery, and recognition from family and friends that you are a woman.

---

Actually, transition will look different for everyone. It's really going to depend on the severity of the dysphoria. This was one area where Mark Yarhouse's book was helpful for me. Some people can't medically transition. I would not say that family/friend recognition has anything to do with it. My family could have rejected me wholesale, including my wife and kids. It wouldn't have negated my transition.

---

I would think the social component of it would be important. Otherwise you could be a narcissist.

Do you view the hormone therapy as medically transitioning into a woman?

---

I would say hormone therapy is one component of medical transition.

---

What are other components?

---

Some examples are things like surgical intervention...gender confirmation surgery, "top" surgery, etc. Most trans people don't undergo surgical intervention, primarily due to costs since trans people suffer from a lot of employment discrimination, which results in lack of medical insurance (most plans will now cover GCS). Other surgeries are unfortunately typically considered cosmetic, although BCBS doesn't consider procedures like facial feminization, and other such surgeries cosmetic, so they've started covering though. They see them less cosmetic and more corrective.

---

I take it by this that "transition" is a process that can never be complete.

Quote:

---

children to receive the treatment they need. Sometimes that could involve the side effect of sterilization.

---

One other point from your honest and demonic summary (again, kudos for not hiding this):

How many children - and I'll again type that word, children - "resolve," both into homosexuality, and into an acceptance of their obvious and quite real gender?

That's what I mean that it can never be complete.

Of course not. This is contextual, as is so much of medicine. By whose and what ethic?

The Apostolic, in my case, opposed for example to much of the old "mainline Protestant" and "Jewish" medical ethic that brought us abortion 70 years ago in NY state (which both Bernard Nathanson and the Rockefellers talked about in depth).

We all appeal to an authority and have assumptions and we all make judgments from there…..

"Is your god "Science!"
?

Quote:

---

This goes back to your fixation on children being able to breed. Your fixation is really sick, man.

---

Wrong.

THIS IS THE SICKNESS

Quote:

---

children to receive the treatment they need. Sometimes that could involve the side effect of sterilization.

---

Quote:

---

No, my God is the triune God.

---

Then stop hurting children by the direct advocacy you have detailed here.

Before I respond, please address the question I just asked regarding resolution. And yes there's plenty of research on that, which I'm sure you are informed of.

Quote:

---

sexual predators

---

Do you believe I am a sexual predator? Should the Staff need to warn you again?

Seems like quite a lot of effort, expenses, chemicals. Is nature trying to tell you anything?

Second, if a physical anthropologist examined our remains a century from now, then I would be very easily identified as a male. The scientific method would give this result. Do you have a sense of what your hypothetical examination might reveal?

Quote:

---

Seems like quite a lot of effort, expenses, chemicals. Is nature trying to tell you anything?

---

"Chemotherapy, bone marrow transplants...man that seems like quite a lot of effort, expenses, and chemicals. Is nature trying to tell you something? You should just let the cancer kill you."

You may not get it. Heck, you obviously don't get it, but it's absolutely worth it to me. It was lifesaving to me. Plus, it's really none of your damn business if it's worth it or not for another person to undergo medical treatment that's supported by the entire medical community. That's a decision solely for the patient, doctor, and guardian (if necessary). You have no moral or legal right to interfere with that decision.

Quote:

---

Second, if a physical anthropologist examined our remains a century from now, then I would be very easily identified as a male. The scientific method would give this result. Do you have a sense of what your hypothetical examination might reveal?

---

Irrelevant, and it's so odd that you're hung up on this. You keep acting as if this is some major gotcha by arguing something that no trans person is arguing. But it also depends on if said anthropologist understands the difference between sex and gender. But, again, this is an irrelevant question.

I've wasted way too much of my time arguing with someone who simply has exhibited that they have no interest in understanding the subject. It's why you keep peddling pseudo-scientific theories that aren't supported by the greater scientific community, such as autogynephalia and ROGD.

The Case Against Autogynephalia

Even in Blanchard's study, the vast majority of trans women didn't even fit into his categories, so he simply said they were "misreporting" their experiences. Bailey, who you seem to believe is widely respected in the psychology community, hides behind "most gender patients lie". So, what you have is a pseudo-scientific theory that rejects all counter-evidence as simply being a case of the trans person being dishonest. Or as Bailey also says, "the most common way that autogynephiles mislead others is by denying the erotic components of their gender bending".

No wonder you're so drawn to hacks like Bailey. They simply ignore any counter-evidence, stick their fingers in their ears, and scream "nuh uh! You're just lying!". There's nothing a trans woman can say to defend against this crackpot theory when it'll just be written off as us lying about our own experiences. Even Ray Blanchard distanced himself from Bailey because of Bailey's unsupported certainty on the Blanchard's theory. Here's a slew of studies that counter Bailey's "research": The real "autogynephilia deniers" | Whipping Girl (juliaserano.blogspot.com)

Not to mention, Bailey wrote his book in 2003, and he continues to ignore all evidence and research post-2005 which counters his theory, which again is largely based on accusing all trans women who don't fall into his categories (the vast majority) of lying.

But yes, keep hiding behind a guy who peddles pseudo-science, and who was pressured to resign and even had a class canceled after he had a guest speaker penetrate a woman with a sex toy in front of class. Also, his peers were critical of his unscientific methods, and he had multiple complaints filed by his subjects: Untitled Document (umich.edu).

Here's even more problematic issues with Blanchard's theory, which Bailey is just picking up and running with:

Quote:

---

The problems with this taxonomy are numerous.

The first is that Ray Blanchard never actually compared his results with a control group, which to anyone acquainted with the scientific method is a pretty egregious oversight. When Dr. Charles Moser did just that and posed Blanchard's survey to cisgender women, he found that 93% of cisgender women classified as "autogynephilic." If we were to accept AGP as a valid scientific theory, we would have to claim that 93% of cisgender women are suffering from a pandemic of "erotic location errors." In other words, all Blanchard "discovered" was that most women pictured themselves with breasts and vulvae in their sexual fantasies, and are frequently aroused by the interactions they imagine with said characteristics.

---

Quote:

---

The second is that Blanchard's claim that we can be neatly sorted into a strict binary (like that's never gone poorly before) is not corroborated by his own data. Subjects from his own studies frequently defied his two-type taxonomy, and Blanchard's response to this was to accuse those subjects of lying. In other words, Blanchard's own methodology rendered his theory unfalsifiable, because if you contradicted the model you were considered an outlier to be dismissed. You don't need to know the scientific method to know that if your "rules" are riddled with exceptions then they ain't rules at all, but for the record, the possibility of being falsified is necessary for a theory to be considered scientific.

---

Quote:

---

Theories that can't be falsified are better known as pseudoscience, which is a more polite way of saying "hot steaming bull*****" For example, when Dr. Jaimie Veale applies Blanchard's AGP questionnaire to trans women, Veale finds a broad range of sexual orientation among both those whose sexual fantasies feature themselves with breasts and vulvae as well as those whose fantasies do not. Dr. Veale concludes "they show little support for a taxonomy, which contradicts previous theory that has suggested MF transsexuals' sexuality is typological." In other words, Dr. Veale wasn't able to locate any reliable correlation when she refused to dismiss half her data.

---

Quote:

---

Simply put: Because it's easier than becoming acquainted with the background knowledge necessary to actually understand Blanchard's work. Just shout "bad trans!" and you "win."

---

This last quote is a perfect description of you, and a great example as to why you embrace such pseudo-science.

Do I need to keep going? People like you will embrace theories like ROGD and autogynephalia, not because they are sound scientific theories (their methodologies and rejection of the scientific method have been widely detailed), but because of confirmation bias. They agree with what you want to hear, therefore they're legitimate. But they're theories that are either dependent on purposely not talking to trans people (ROGD) or accusing the vast majority of trans people of simply lying about their experiences (autogynephalia). They are studies that had their conclusions written before even beginning the "study". You simply agree with their conclusions, so the fundamental flaws in how they get there is irrelevant to you.

So, the same continuation of the devolution of terms - especially "treatment" and "harm."

And I think we all know the answer to the physical anthropologist question.

Not ignoring anything whatsoever being on mobile and traveling.

Chromosomes and physical anthropology tells the story of reality - should we only be materialist. Believe in science, trust the science, or no?

I didn't start the thread but am glad its being read.

I will retract not a single shred and we will see you I'm sure from time to time. It is illuminating, isn't it.

Also, in case you were still questioning, the answer to the physical anthropologist hypothetical of a century hence …

In your case, as in mine, the answer is "male"

We have argued like the men we both are - with energy and vigor.

Or, perhaps as I already mentioned tonight, I'm traveling internationally at present.

Is the photo just above apt?

OK. Happy to highlight the work of J. Michael Bailey, the leftist social liberal at the very pinnacle of his profession, as well as Abigail Shrier - who has gathered so MANY first-hand testimonies, INCLUDING from the doctors who pioneered some of the surgeries you've championed! (ie https://bariweiss.substack.com/p/top-trans-doctors-blow-the-whistle )