ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1hr ago
Three of them, even! (Sorry, couldn't resist).
That's a bit of a stretch. Hypocrisy would be if he claimed to be a good Christian boy, and then this stuff came out. Or if he made the same claim you did about the impossibility of human connection while engaging in interracial gay findom meth sex, and then the video came out. But this? Again, where is the hypocrisy, other than in some of the same people attacking him simping for literal porn actresses?
Where's the hypocrisy? Where did you get the idea he's a conservative?
I've seen complaints about hypocrisy of conservative commentates defending Greenwald but those very same complaints (retweeted by James Lindsay) fume about "A leftist pervert with a public sex tape..." (as if he's the one that published it, lol). No sorry, the only hypocrites here are anti-woke-rightists.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
What about it? Her claims remain ridiculous, she continues to grift off them.
What's ridiculous about them? She provided evidence for them. Even for specific claims you singled out as absurd.
Did I say that we should have no controls and no gating whatsoever, thirty second appointments, or are you strawmanning me?
I don't know if it's possible to strawman you, since you keep your opinion implicit. I just noticed you haven't provided a direct argument for the treatments being based on good evidence, and if they're not based on evidence, what is the argument for giving them to children?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3hr ago
My favorite part of this is the anti-woke-right brigade suddenly deciding they don't like gay sexual degeneracy.
I'm more familiar with the Russians who never needed to be cowed into condemning Putin by canceling because they were doing that back in Russia, with great enthusiasm, and were anxious because of potential retaliation from the Russian government, not the Western blob.
Sure, if someone's an actual activist, they're not going to have a lot of fun over there. Possibly even without activism, just having an anti-regime opinion will get you roughly the same reaction as saying something politically incorrect in the west.
True, but it's a different kind of restrictive. One could even argue prospiratorial restriction by "society" is, if anything, more natural and easier to roll with than arbitrarily-tyrannical restriction from top to bottom by faceless bureaucrats and cops.
I don't know about that. Authoritarians tend to demand fairly basic professions of loyalty, rather than changing your understanding of what a woman is, or that you think the Star Wars sequels are good. I find the former far more predictable, and easier to roll with than the latter.
I think Russia as a state will be worse off after formally kicking out all the platforms that were hosting badspeak and not having a big enough slice of the internet to compensate locally. But maybe that's just wishful thinking.
Cracking down on wrongthink didn't seem to affect western governments. Arguably Elon buying Twitter and allowing wrongthink threw much of a wrench into their work than and second-order effects of them quashing dissent.
Also, keep in mind that I was only talking about banning online dating, pornography, and prostitution. It's like I said in the other comment, western governments ban things all the time, and no one decries that as authoritarianism. We ban the sale of illicit drugs or online gambling, and while there are people arguing these things should be legal, I somehow don't see much handwringing over supposedly liberal countries that choose criminalize them.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
11hr ago
I seem to recall that free range parenting was heavily dunked, particularly by small-c conservative types, in the 90s as hippie bullshit where negligent parents were allowed to turn their kids into unsupervised, uncivilized little menaces that would go on to terrorize their fellow citizens without reprimand.
Was that about "free range parenting" or about other trends that promoted not disciplining children or letting them do whatever they want ("stress-free upbringing", "unschooling")? The only controversy I remember about "free rage parenting" was a mother that let her kid ride the NY subway on his own, to the horror of safetyists throughout the country. I don't recall the safetyists having a particular political lean.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
The kids parents are destroying them. Why stop them?
This is probably a smaller issue now that the opposition to trans became more prominent, but many parents were Milgram Experiment-ed into it. The point is to give them enough info that they realize they don't have to listen to the dude in the labcoat.
I've only ever seen papers mention psychological reasons for treating it, and I feel like dicking around with hormones to avoid awkwardness in school is rather excessive.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21hr ago
Oh, hey there. Are you ever responding to that Jaime Reed thing you started?
I think it is worth noting that on all of this discussion about blockers, blockers are supposed to be the compromise position that was suggested to placate those concerned about youth gender medicine.
You could just let them take cross-sex hormones instead.
Is the idea here that you should default to giving children any medicine they ask for, or is it just some special case for hormones?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
21hr ago
It has not been prescribed to that many kids for purposes other than delaying extremely precocious puberty.
I meant banning them for off-label use, like gender dysphoria. Though to be honest, precocious puberty was a bit dubious itself, the last time I checked, but I can let it fly.
What observations does the social contagion hypothesis exclude?
Analogous to the placebo effect: exposing a population to a foreign idea, and it not coinciding with a self-identification with that idea.
If mere exposure to trans was the primary explanation, I would expect the normal FTM demographic to instead look like normies who happen to like stuff which portrays a lot of trans people.
I see no reason to grant that assumption. Do alien abductees look like normies?
That is fair and valid and also not a very good basis for making policy about what medical treatments should be forbidden.
Isn't it a good basis for reversing policies about medical treatments that have been approved, based on trust in the people who have been proven to lie?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
You said that she's against it, not that she's unsupportive.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I’ve never heard “what’s up with all the canes” despite being pretty active in trans communities (I actually don’t know anybody that uses a cane or crutch), although I’m seeing that canes are popular in the broader American queer community for some reason?
I'm confused. By the time you reach the end of the sentence, you seem to confirm what I've said. I suppose what you mean is that the queer community in your locality has not been affected by that particular thing?
To have the best chance of passing, you should skip the 2 years of puberty blocker and just go straight into opposite-sex HRT.
I will, once again, have to comb through the 7 zillion hours of podcasts I listened to for a source, but I solemnly swear that the original rationale for puberty blockers was passing. Even if, after some experimentation, it turned out that you get better results with just going directly to hormones, I swear that this was the original rationale, as per the Dutch researchers who kicked off the trend. This will probably take longer than the other search, but I'm planting a flag here, and I will also get back to you once I found it, or have tapped out.
Argh no this is exactly the reaction I am worried about from the people who want to ban puberty blockers because trans.
Sorry, I might be missing something, but I honestly cannot grasp how I should shrug at the extremely poor quality of evidence for prescribing puberty blockers, because it hasn't been prescribed to that many kids, but shriek in horror at the suggestion of banning them, because the number is growing. If the number is growing, than your original argument for dismissing my concerns is invalid, isn't it?
You could perhaps ban puberty blockers for kids over a certain age
If anything, I'd want to ban it for kids under a certain age.
Calling both alien abductions and recovered memories "social contagion" is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say that "social contagion" is a non-explanation.
Feel free to disagree with the analogies, it's entirely possible that dysphoria is not like alien abductions or recovered memories, but the comparison does show that social contagion is not a non-explanation.
Scott had a bit about how parapsychology is a placebo for studies, in that we know that, say, remote viewing is bunk, but it will still yield a statistically significant result in a properly done, controlled, double-blinded, peer-reviewed studies. So whatever that result is on average, it should be seen as the "placebo effect" for any other phenomenon, and any study that cannot beat it should be dismissed. It's a similar case here, we know that alien abductions aren't real, but we see them being reported, and we see how they correlate to their portrayal in the media. If you can't show that a purely self-reported phenomenon like gender dysphoria doesn't break out of the same media exposure pattern, there's no reason to believe it's a real thing to begin with.
My understanding is that, to the extent that "social contagion" is a coherent hypothesis at all
What is incoherent about it? We do have other references for phenomena that are social contagion for sure, because no one has been abducted by aliens. Are these hypotheses incoherent too?
This strikes me as unlikely, especially since "antisocial and lonely" is a risk factor for the mtf group.
The internet is a thing these days. People can read, watch Netflix shows with capital "D" diversity up the wazoo, etc. There's parasocial effects stemming from following influencers. Subreddits, Discords. Sorry, but this is pure cope.
Base rate. Lots of people care start caring about things when they become personally affected by them, and orders of magnitudes more people were personally affected by the pronoun craze and the corresponding threats to livelihood and job security than even know someone personally affected by puberty blockers.
Well, a swing and a miss in my case. I take the issue personally, because when I was originally exposed to it, I had to reluctantly concede, even though it went against my instincts, as the other side had all the studies and experts on their side. Then the studies turned out to be bluffs, and the experts were proven to be actively lying. I resent overriding my instincts for a lie, which is why I'm so invested in pointing out that the liars have, in fact, been lying.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I kinda know what you mean, but I think there are limits to the method. Stella O'Malley, one of the most prominent anti-trans activists out there, had what could would probably fall under "gender dysphoria" from your definition. Plot twist: she's happily cis, and a mother of two children nowadays, and the experience of getting over the discomfort is part of the motivation for her activism.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
The criteria for a gender dysphoria diagnosis is that you're "consistent, persistent, and insistent" about it, I think I even they even give a specific time period of exhibiting *sistence, and if memory serves, it's something like a few months. I'll try to look it up, and get back to you.
This has been a bit frustrating to look up. While the phrase “Insistent, persistent, and consistent” does appear here and there, as though it is quoting someone, I can't seem to locate the original source. The first time I heard it must have been during one of the 7 zillion hours of trans / anti-trans confenrences I've watched, but my best effort attempt, of writing a script for downloating auto-subtitles from my playlists and grepping for the keywords, has yielded no match.
For what it's worth, the "few month" period seems to come from the DSM-5, and the diagnostic criterion seems to match the sentiment behind the 3-word phrase, so maybe it's a summary of that , rather than a direct quote.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I keep hearing stories of COBOL programmers getting paid insane amounts of money...
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Ok, looks like I have to take the L for the week and say no tinkering for me. Any better luck @Southkraut?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
Historical eunuchs who were castrated pre-puberty had remarkably increased lifespans (and that’s with no sex hormones, having estrogen in your system would decrease the odds of osteoporosis),
On one hand - good point, I think I was researching eunuchs at some point for a point of comparison, and came to similar conclusions. OTOH, bone density problems seem to be acknowledged by all the studies, and I've seen "what's up with all the canes" posts on trans forums. There's also questions of cancer risks, ovarian cysts, etc. etc. I don't know if the question has a simple answer.
The whole point of the former was to let the minor have time to decide if they want to transition or not, but that seems to have been lost in the debate.
Not quite. The original rationale for puberty blockers was passing, "time to choose" was a marketing strategy. It has been lost to debate when the reversibility of blockers became dubious / indefensible.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
No, it's just a silly joke based on you getting the first initial wrong. Unless I there's another Kennedy in the admin that I'm not aware of.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I think I'd take some weird looks over having to walk with a cane before I even turn 30
but still displays gender dysphoria (which you can confirm by asking if it is actually gender dysphoria or the kid is mistakenly wanting to be the other gender for some other reason)
Huh? How do you ask "is this actually gender dysphoria" to someone who hasn't heard of the concept?
I would say "more attention than puberty blockers", because the number of affected kids is much higher.
On the other hand, other parts of gender affirming care, might not have such a big impact, and aren't actively being sold as reversible. Either way, puberty blockers alone warrant a massive amount of attention if we compare them to other issues that entered social consciousness. Harvey Weinstein affected way fewer people, but we spent way more time on him then we do on blockers, for example.
Also, if blockers aren't such a big deal, then let's just ban them. After all very few people would be affected by the ban.
Something caused a massive uptick in either the experience of dysphoria, the reaction to dysphoria, or some combination thereof. I think "social contagion" is a thought-terminating non-explanation here.
We don't actually know whether more people experience dysphoria, vs. interpret their experience as dysphoria. This goes right to your point about social contagion. Just look at some of the other contagions - the Satanic Panic, alien abductions, recovered memories, anorexia - the incidence of these, and many other things, increase with coverage from the media, and there's no evidence they increase with the actual phenomenon increasing in frequency, or at least I'm yet to see evidence of an actual alien abduction. So I see no reason to assume that gender dysphoria is any different.
To reduce the rate of trans identification, I think it would be worth looking into what generally leads to discomfort with being embodied
Social contagion is exactly one of the explanations offered for this. It says that what leads to discomfort with being embodied is talking about discomfort with being embodied, especially when you glamorize it during the conversation.
Of course, if you don't actually care about that and your main objection is to "point deer say horse", that is perfectly valid.
Nope, that's more of an argument against mantras like "trans women are women", I agree it's not related to any discussion on gender affirming care. I'm quite puzzled why you'd think otherwise, actually.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
What you are saying is true, but incomplete. If someone were certain to transition, it is unarguably true that it is better for them to begin pre-puberty and be in the puberty blockers -> transition pipeline. But the important word there is if.
To pick a nit, that's nit necessarily true. It might turn out that early puberty blockade causes issues later on (say, early onset osteoporosis and/or dementia) that the patient might in hindsight decide weren't worth the benefits of better looks while young.
That's another "if" on my part, of course, but just wanted to point out it's not unarguable.
I keep hearing people say that, so maybe you can explain to me what happened there. Was he bragging? Was the retweet an attempt to get ahead of the scandal?
More options
Context Copy link