The conservative movement has built its case against gender-affirming care on the authority of anachronistic, faulty clinical research.
Remember how in the beginning of the movie Interstellar the lady is talking about how the moon landing was a hoax, in a way that indicated that was the accepted fact?
I agree that transgender care is the best solution we have at the moment. But I disagree with not investigating it as a neurological issue that might have other, also effective, avenues for treatment with ultimately the person choosing which treatment is best for them. Hell the declassification of gender dysphoria as a mental health issue was politically motivated without sufficient evidence to prove that in some cases gender dysphoria might not simply be its own thing rather than a symptom.
If progressives adopted this stance, they might be able to make some inroads with the general population. But once you start dismissing every probe into the issue as erasure or transphobia, people are just gonna trust their gut instincts because they can see that the rhetoric is only using science as it is convenient to its immediate goals. In fewer words, it seems sus.
Please, please go read what the actual M.D.s and psychologists who study this topic for a living have to say on the subject.
Not a news article or a blog post, I want you to go to any reputable medical association, find their official policy, and read the research papers listed in the references.
I know what the current science says. I don’t think I can explain my point better than this article will:
https://aeon.co/essays/one-womans-nose-and-two-mens-hubris-a-nasogenital-tale
The difference is that the woman highlighted in that article had complaints about symptoms she was experiencing. Not complaints from other people about who she was. We’ve also learned a lot more since the late 19th century.
The cherry on top is the last sentence of the article you linked:
But our main character would finally rest in peace if we could just give the man credit where he so believed it was due – our universal natural bisexuality.
You missed the entire point of the article I think. The point is that what we consider sound science today has a high chance of sounding like absolute nonsense in a few centuries. Therefore saying “read the science” implies that there’s nothing else to discover about the subject. Thats a ridiculous notion.
And frankly, as many trans activists will say sexual orientation has little to do with being transgender, so I don’t see what you think that last sentence bears of relevance to my point. I agree with it though, if that la worth anything.
The only reason it’s an “issue” is because fucking idiots make it an issue.
If it’s a “neurological issue” that might have “other avenues for treatment,” those avenues for treatment are ones that should be applied to the fucking idiots to get them to stop being fucking idiots. They’re the ones with neurological issues that cause problems for themselves and others.
Yeah that’s about the kind of nuanced response I expected this comment would receive.
One person, just going about their day, not hurting anyone.
Another person, deciding that the first person is “unnatural” (Narrator: They are not unnatural), screams and hollers about it.
You: “Well, the first person has a neurological issue.”
???
I didn’t say it is a neurological issue. I say it could be one, and it needs to be investigated as to whether it is or not.
You’re splitting hairs, and you’re still dead wrong. It’s the same as suggesting that people who don’t adhere to your chosen religion could have neurological issues, based only on that observation.
The observation is that humans, barring any genetical defects of any kind have one of two sexes: male or female, and they generally feel comfortable with the genitals attached to their bodies. The fact that a very small percentage of people are born differently infers that there might be a root cause because every single thing that happens in our bodies and minds has a biological root.
Religion itself as a set of rules and systems has its origins in response to curiosity, whose biological roots we do not know entirely but could be an evolutionary adaptation. After it satisfies curiosity it also becomes a system for social order.
Do I need to write an essay from every rebuttal you might have? Or can you accept that point blank we should be investigating, if not into the interest of treatment but in the interest of pure knowledge itself why this thing happens?
The observation is that humans, barring any genetical defects of any kind have one of two sexes: male or female, and they generally feel comfortable with the genitals attached to their bodies.
That’s wrong twice. Most people are born with distinct male or female genitalia. Some are not. There is no “genetical defect” involved in any case.
Investigating for understanding is always welcome. You’re presupposing that something is “wrong” with people who either don’t have distinctly identifiable genitalia, or whose brains and physical features don’t align like you think they should. There is nothing wrong with those people.
No, compromising with conservatives does nothing but give them more power and the world further into fascism.
This is not compromising with conservatives. It’s compromising with popular attitude towards the conversation. This is the problem with progressives right now, you contradict yourselves, arent you supposed to be a movement of the people for the people?
I know you aren’t but this is what many progressives claim so maybe solve that internal contradiction if you want to appeal to the masses. People may be stupid but they can see the anti populist attitude of the progressives and this is why you don’t have their support.
Hmmm, who also wanted to go with the populist values at the expense of human rights? Nazis. We want all humans to be equal, not throw trans people under the bus to be “popular”. Which itself is a lie, politicians that stand for trans rights are more popular to most people.
Well I never said that populism necessarily led to desirable outcomes. I said that progressives keep the pretense of being a popular movement when it really isn’t. It’s a technocratic movement, but admitting that is political suicide so it keeps the veneer of populism. But the working class can see that they are not welcome in the movement because they are “uneducated, bigots, racists etc” as soon as they disagree with a single point in the agenda so who are you really appealing to by saying you are of the people for the people? Probably yourselves because no one else buys it.
Naww, the working class is down with LGBT, it’s the ruling class that tries to force the view by buying millions of dollars worth of ads and astroturfing by homophobic Russia. Most people are a live and let live type but Republicans in power need a boogie man. As you can see from them going after gay marriage when they thought they killed off trans support.
I think the working class is down with LGBT until the Ts are in the same teams as their girls and in the same bathrooms their wives but ok, if you believe that fine.
Why do you feel like permanently altering the brain to make it tolerate the body would be a preferable alternative to permanently altering the body to make the brain happier?
Well for one a lot of people transition but they don’t “pass” and this still causes them significant mental stress. What if they had another option that was just as valid and viable? Isn’t the point solving the mental distress caused by the incongruence?
More choices are never a bad thing.
I just find it strange you’d rather fix it by changing who we are then just letting us fix our bodies. Much of the concern with passing is fear from living in a transphobic society. It’s a safety issue, not an issue with incongruence. Wouldn’t better access to care solve the issue more readily than diverting resources to a supposed cure?
I find it equally strange that you would oppose that the option even be there. Or that the research be made at all. It’s not an either or thing, we can do the research and use the best available methods in the present to help you at the same time. And maybe even put some research into improving plastic surgery, hormonal treatments etc. I think all avenues should be fully explored and invested into. But trans activists seem to believe that there’s only one proper avenue and all others are damned. I reject that notion entirely, because it’s simply not in the spirit of good science.
I don’t think doubting the benefits of a currently fictional alternative medicine is an unreasonable position to take.
I think opposing research into potential treatments and further understanding of any condition is an unreasonable position to take.
Well, I hope someday you get funding for your passion project.
