~ archived since 2018 ~

Since many feminists support this let's calculate

sabazurc · 2023-02-07T19:19:12+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/JordanPeterson/comments/10vxvj2/meet_the_worlds_youngest_transgender_model_born/ 0.03% chance of being born with gender dysmorphia and...

sabazurc

February 7, 2023

25 upvotes

/r/MensRights

Archived from /r/MensRights

r/MensRights is a community advocating for the social and legal equality of men and boys since 2008.

TheRedArchive is an archive of Red Pill subreddits and blogs. This page is our copy of the original post.

/r/MensRights archive

Download the post

Want to save the post for offline use on your device? Choose one of the download options below:

PDF TXT EPUB

Support the archive

Everything here was supposed to disappear. Banned subreddits, deleted communities, cancelled blogs — much of what is archived here survives nowhere else.

It stays free — no paywall, no account — for the next man who comes looking, the way it was free for you.

I pay for the servers, the storage and the bandwidth myself. If you want this record still standing in ten years, become one of the people who keeps it online.

Support the archive

Post Information

Title	Since many feminists support this let's calculate
Author	sabazurc
Upvotes	25
Comments	63
Date	February 7, 2023 7:19 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/10wafsr/since_many_feminists_support_this_lets_calculate/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/since-many-feminists-support-this-lets-calculate.1151583 https://theredarchive.com/post/1151583

Comments

[–]volleyballbeach 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]volleyballbeach 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]mrkpxx 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]Cranium_Internum 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[+]Cranium_Internum 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[+]Cranium_Internum 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Digger_is_taken 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]TetraThiaFulvalene 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]Digger_is_taken -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

Your use of “blades of grass” in this circumstance was merely an attempt to sound more intellectual. Are the chances of successive generations having gender dysphoria greater than the chances that a trans activist would do everything to convince their child that they have a trans identity?

Trans activists push now to the extent that Sturgeon (and others) accept changing gender essentially on the identification of the person, with merely 3 months of continuous identification and not even requiring a medical or psychological assessment. Do you honestly believe that an activist movement that pushes for this, and for enforcing the use of made up pronouns on the general populace (and certainly enforcing people to specify on documentation “their” pronouns) is going to happily accept research which suggests that gender dysphoria is a reaction to past trauma and is best treated by NOT indulging it, but by various strategies to help the sufferer to come to terms with the body they inhabit and the sex they were born (not claiming this is reality BTW)? Any such study would be vehemently opposed by trans activists, and you know it. Which means only research aimed at validating trans identities will be allowed. You’re not that naive to believe otherwise are you?

[–]Digger_is_taken 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Digger_is_taken 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

Never said I didn’t like “big words”. I’m just bemused by those who only use them to pretend to have a better argument than they do.

But you want links?

How about this: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brown-university-caves-to-trans-activists-protesting-research/

Or this: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/03/19/trans-activists-fail-block-research-suggesting-gender-dysphoria/

I’m not endorsing either claim, but it raises things that trans activists don’t like, and hence they seek to shut it down. And even if they don’t, the chances are that faculty may due to fear of controversy.

And I do think it likely that trans activists would oppose research that purported to show that gender dysphoria can be “cured” and should not be “indulged”. Or are you seriously suggesting they would be fine with such research?

[–]Digger_is_taken 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

So it appears, what you've done, is posted the first two links that appear to support your point, without reading them or considering how strong the evidence is. You started the conversation with an opinion and no facts, and you are back filling confirmation bias now.

But do your links actually support your point? The second link is behind a paywall. And the headline is "activists fail to suppress research." Which demonstrates that this one time in the UK, one group of activists tried to get some research suppressed, and failed. This actually supports my point, which is that even in the (very rare) cases when trans activists try to suppress research, it doesn't work, even according to a conservative newspaper.

That leaves us with the first link. The National Review. Hoo boy. National Review is a far right publication. Which is not to say that it has no value. But they are ideologically driven, and so should not be taken at face value. I have read through the article and checked the sources, and am ready to respond.

But before I do, I just want to be clear. This is the single best example that you could find of trans activists suppressing research. And if I demonstrate this case to be bunk, you will withdraw the claim. Correct?

[–]Angryasfk 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

You claimed they don’t try to suppress research they don’t like and demanded evidence that they do. So you can’t just dismiss the Telegraph one as you try. And as for the National Review, do you think a left-leaning publication is going to carry a story critical of trans activists given that trans issues currently rate very highly on their list of worthy causes?

I’m not going to spend hours searching for information that most mainstream publications would prefer to avoid anyway just to please someone who’d dismiss it anyway. Which you are doing clearly with the Telegraph story.

You are not arguing in good faith. Why else are you constantly pushing this particular issue? Gay activists oppose any research that treats homosexuality as a mental health condition, and certainly don’t think it should be “cured”. Why would trans activists be any different?

[–]Digger_is_taken1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

You made the affirmative claim that research *is* being suppressed by trans activists. In particular you lamented that specific subjects of inquiry could not be explored because of it. I pointed out that I am not aware of any research being suppressed by trans activists. I cannot be expected to prove a negative. You are supposed to support your claim and then I can examine your evidence and see if it supports your claim, which it does not.

An example of trans activists *trying* to suppress research and *failing* to do so does not support your original point, because the research was not suppressed. It is also behind a paywall, which means that I can't read it and properly respond to it. And it calls into question if you read the article at all. So unless you can respond to any of these points, yes the Telegraph article can be written off because it doesn't even claim to be an example of what you're talking about, and I can't read it anyway.

Before I respond to the other article, from the National Review, I want to check that this is the best example of trans activists suppressing research that you know of. Because if it is, and I can demonstrate that the example is bunk, you will withdraw the original claim. Do you agree to these terms?

[–]Angryasfk1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

No it can’t be written off Digger. At the very least it means that trans activists (and there is a difference between a “trans activist” and regular person with gender dysphoria) are actually seeking to stop research they don’t like, which is something you claimed wasn’t true.

It’s clearly the tip of the iceberg as well. And in this age of “wokeism” and “cancel culture” university departments are going to be loath to allow research projects that may make them the target of trans protests or SJWs protesting on their behalf.

You’re just trying to pretend that trans activists don’t care if psychology bodies undertake research and make pronouncements that may question or deny trans identities, or define it as a disorder which could be “cured” or managed. Do you honestly think they’re going to not campaign against research if it claims that indulging gender dysphoria is harmful?

You’re acting like a classic SeaLion here.

[–]Digger_is_taken1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

OK, I'm going to try this one more time and then give up. If we can't advance after this, I'm not going to try again.

Goalposts. We set the goalpost, you take your shot, then we measure to see if you past the goalpost. If you do pass the goalpost, I need to accept your claim. If you cannot provide evidence that passes the goalpost, you need to withdraw the claim. The reason to structure a conversation this way, is that it tethers us to empirical evidence and allows our conversation to advance.

The statement that started this whole thread off, was the claim that it is a shame that further research can't be done in an area, because trans activists are suppressing it. You are making out the difference between trying to suppress and succeeding in suppression. But it is an important distinction because the crux of the issue is whether or not the research is suppressed. And in the case of the Telegram article, it was not.

I'm not here to speculate about the inner world and motivations of trans activists. I'm here to determine if research is being suppressed, and your telegram article does not make that claim. In fact it purports to be an example of academic freedom triumphing over an attempt at suppression. The system working as intended, nothing to see here, move on.

Now what I'd like to do is put the Telegram article to bed and move on to the National Review article, which is a hot mess that I'm really looking forward to dismantling. But I don't want to bother doing that until you agree to set the goalpost clearly. So for the third time, I want to confirm that the National Review article is the strongest example that you could find of trans activists suppressing research, and that if I demonstrate that it is bunk you will withdraw the initial claim for being empirically unsupported. Agreed?

[–]Angryasfk1 point 3 years ago [recovered] | Copy Link

Mate, you keep moving the goalposts on this one. You claimed that trans activists (ie not trans people as a whole, but a small group of political campaigners, many of whom aren’t trans themselves) do not try to stop or suppress research into gender dysphoria if runs counter to their preferred “narrative”. You then demanded I give you some evidence that this has ever occurred.

A quick search gave two examples. You dismiss one apparently simply because it failed. But that’s not the point. They tried to suppress the research because they found it objectionable and “insulting”. Just because in that case the university didn’t hop to and call a halt doesn’t change the fact that they tried to do this. Something which you claimed trans activists would not do.

I don’t doubt there are other examples. I also don’t doubt that these are likely to go unreported in the mainstream media, outside of the likes of the National Enquirer, because of the desire to be seen as sympathetic to trans causes. Even stories about trans athletes “invading women’s sports” were fairly muted, and left to “far right” opinion writers (and some reporting of Martina Navratilova’s comment and hasty retreat) until the advent of Lia Thomas.

[–]B_P_G -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]volleyballbeach 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 3 years ago (48 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]volleyballbeach 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sumar 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]volleyballbeach -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (39 children) | Copy Link

[+][deleted] 3 years ago* (38 children) | Copy Link

[permanently deleted]

[–]sumar 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (25 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (24 children) | Copy Link

[–]sumar 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]sumar 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]AdBeginning676 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago* (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (15 children) | Copy Link

[–]sumar 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdBeginning676 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]AdBeginning676 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Loud_Telephone_8924 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]sabazurc[S] 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Enough_Knowledge10001 points 3 years ago [recovered] (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]EmirikolWoker 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link