Gender reassignment/affirming surgery

[icehorse]

I could provide more but my claim is clearly not speculation.

The study you linked to is dubious. First off, it focuses on India and India's culture is far different than the culture in the West. And the explosion of people identifying as trans is mostly a Western phenomenom.

Second, it doesn't mention comorbidities, and in the trans population comorbidities are common, so your study appears to be making a causation / correlation error.

Third, it conflates suicidal thoughts to suicides, and of course those are two very, very different things.

I understand that trans people face a lot of challenges, and we should provide the best help that we can. But that requires being honest about the true nature of their various physical and mental health conditions. For example, it's frowned upon to say that gender dysphoria (GD), is a mental health condition (for fear of stigmatizing?), but it clearly is, given that talk therapy is almost universally seen as a key component of care for people with GD.

 

[icehorse]

No, you didn't. You copied and pasted someone else's examples.
And those examples have already been addressed umpteen times on your threads already.

I don't recall them EVER being addressed, so I'll need to see some citations.

And yes, I copied the examples. That's kind of how citations work, doh!

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The study you linked to is dubious. First off, it focuses on India and India's culture is far different than the culture in the West. And the explosion of people identifying as trans is mostly a Western phenomenom.

Second, it doesn't mention comorbidities, and in the trans population comorbidities are common, so your study appears to be making a causation / correlation error.

Third, it conflates suicidal thoughts to suicides, and of course those are two very, very different things.

I understand that trans people face a lot of challenges, and we should provide the best help that we can. But that requires being honest about the true nature of their various physical and mental health conditions. For example, it's frowned upon to say that gender dysphoria (GD), is a mental health condition (for fear of stigmatizing?), but it clearly is, given that talk therapy is almost universally seen as a key component of care for people with GD.

" But that requires being honest about the true nature of their various physical and mental health conditions. "
And that is with objective objective evidence for the general human condition including normal humans how?

 

[SkepticThinker]

I don't recall them EVER being addressed, so I'll need to see some citations.

You don't seem to recall a lot of interactions we've shared on these threads, for some reason.

Let's go with this one:

"Last, but least, TV’s India Willoughby proves we women can call a black broadcaster a ‘nasty *****’ who ‘wouldn’t be anywhere without woke’, dub lesbians men, insult the looks of a female Olympic swimmer, ‘joke’ about kidnapping feminists, and STILL get airtime! What a gal! 10/11"


Can you tell me what on earth that is supposed to mean?

And yes, I copied the examples. That's kind of how citations work, doh!

You didn't compile the examples yourself. You found someone on Twitter who did and copied that.

 

[icehorse]

You don't seem to recall a lot of interactions we've shared on these threads, for some reason.

We've had many interactions, but I think you're wrong about this one. If you're right, you can show me an example.

Let's go with this one:

"Last, but least, TV’s India Willoughby proves we women can call a black broadcaster a ‘nasty *****’ who ‘wouldn’t be anywhere without woke’, dub lesbians men, insult the looks of a female Olympic swimmer, ‘joke’ about kidnapping feminists, and STILL get airtime! What a gal! 10/11"


Can you tell me what on earth that is supposed to mean?

It seems clear that Willoughby has a bad, misogynistic history, what do you find confusing?

You didn't compile the examples yourself. You found someone on Twitter who did and copied that.

Again, that's how citations work. None of us on RF are on the street taking polls or in the lab doing research. We are finding and forwarding the work done by others. How is this collection of bad men any different?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We've had many interactions, but I think you're wrong about this one. If you're right, you can show me an example.



It seems clear that Willoughby has a bad, misogynistic history, what do you find confusing?


Again, that's how citations work. None of us on RF are on the street taking polls or in the lab doing research. We are finding and forwarding the work done by others. How is this collection of bad men any different?

Move to the next level and explain what you would do.
We all get that you think it is not working now. So what do you propose?

 

[SkepticThinker]

We've had many interactions, but I think you're wrong about this one. If you're right, you can show me an example.

I don't have time to scroll through entire threads looking for it. Sorry.

It seems clear that Willoughby has a bad, misogynistic history, what do you find confusing?

Is it?

Why couldn't you answer my question?

Again, that's how citations work. None of us on RF are on the street taking polls or in the lab doing research. We are finding and forwarding the work done by others. How is this collection of bad men any different?

You didn't find any examples yourself. You cribbed someone else's Tweet which supposedly contained examples. One of which is listed above, which makes zero sense to me. And you've not clarified it.

 

[icehorse]

Move to the next level and explain what you would do.
We all get that you think it is not working now. So what do you propose?

Well the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem to be solved You might be there, but clearly other posters are not.

But assuming we agree that there is a problem:

Protections for women should be based on biology, not on some unfalsifiable "feeling" that an individual has. I know that this leaves good faith trans women in some tough situations. And we should work to find solutions to those situations. But we should discard any proposed solutions that negatively impact women. We should constrain ourselves to finding only win-win solutions.

 

[McBell]

I have provided 11 specific examples at your request. These examples have been posted on the internet for over a month now. If they were inaccurate, someone would have said something.

I know these examples upset your view of reality, but again, they are easily verifiable.

Then why has it been so difficult for you to verify them?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Well the first step is to acknowledge that there is a problem to be solved You might be there, but clearly other posters are not.

But assuming we agree that there is a problem:

Protections for women should be based on biology, not on some unfalsifiable "feeling" that an individual has. I know that this leaves good faith trans women in some tough situations. And we should work to find solutions to those situations. But we should discard any proposed solutions that negatively impact women. We should constrain ourselves to finding only win-win solutions.

Yeah, we won't agree. You demand a standard of evidence you don't live up to yourself with your norms, which are in the end connected to feelings.

 

[icehorse]

Why couldn't you answer my question?

I could, but I don't have time to educate you. You seem to care deeply about this topic, but you don't seem to be willing to learn anything about it. It is not my job to educate you.

You didn't find any examples yourself

Well no, I found a collection of examples.

Again, how is that any different than citing a poll or a research paper?

 

[icehorse]

Yeah, we won't agree. You demand a standard of evidence you don't live up to yourself with your norms, which are in the end connected to feelings.

then why did you ask me the question?

 

[icehorse]

Then why has it been so difficult for you to verify them?

It's merely time consuming, and the evidence in the world is that they are accurate. So I could verify them, but I trust the source, and I trust that if they were in error, the libeled people would have responded. None have.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

then why did you ask me the question?

Because maybe you can learn the limit of evidence or falsifaction in regards to being a human. I mean, I can hope.

 

[McBell]

I could, but I don't have time to educate you. You seem to care deeply about this topic, but you don't seem to be willing to learn anything about it. It is not my job to educate you.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I could, but I don't have time to educate you. You seem to care deeply about this topic, but you don't seem to be willing to learn anything about it. It is not my job to educate you.

Okay, so let's get this straight. I asked you a question about one of the examples you've provided.
You refuse to clarify. You refuse to explain what's being said.
And that's supposed to be my failing?

Mmkay. Next time you beg someone to address your examples, remember this conversation.

Well no, I found a collection of examples.

I'm trying to address one with you and you've refused.

Again, how is that any different than citing a poll or a research paper?

It's much different than citing a poll, in which many members participated and gave their input.

You've "cited" one person's tweet. And I can't even get you to address one single example from that tweet.

 

[icehorse]

Okay, so let's get this straight. I asked you a question about one of the examples you've provided.
You refuse to clarify. You refuse to explain what's being said.
And that's supposed to be my failing?

Mmkay. Next time you beg someone to address your examples, remember this conversation.

I'm trying to address one with you and you've refused.

It's much different than citing a poll, in which many members participated and gave their input.

You've "cited" one person's tweet. And I can't even get you to address one single example from that tweet.

dig in and double down, I just cannot spend any more time dealing with your false accusations, have a fine day

 

[icehorse]

Because maybe you can learn the limit of evidence or falsifaction in regards to being a human. I mean, I can hope.

again, head on over to the philosophy forum, have a fine day.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

again, head on over to the philosophy forum, have a fine day.

So you break your own rule and talk about falsification. Now make a thread in philosophy about it.

 

[McBell]

It's merely time consuming, and the evidence in the world is that they are accurate. So I could verify them, but I trust the source, and I trust that if they were in error, the libeled people would have responded. None have.

I see.

Well, I apparently have a much higher standard than you.

But since you are going to flat refuse to support your claim, even though "they are easily verifiable", no reason to take you seriously.