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.