Challenging gender "education": where do you even begin?

submitted by teacherterf from self.GenderCritical

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]one1won 3 insightful - 3 fun3 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 3 fun -  (23 children)

OMG. Thank you so much for this post! I cringed and laughed. Well written!

I view you as a wise and brave person to subject yourself to this BEFORE it may become mandatory. Get the shock experience under your belt, so to speak!

Being out of the workforce, myself, I can only hone in on:

there are way more trans people than ever before, and that's because we're more accepting of trans people

Then we need to stop being accepting! Hmmmm

[–]teacherterf[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (22 children)

Thank you! As for "way more trans people", my takeaway from that one along with the next bullet point was "oh, so we're seeing a huge increase of a type of person that has a 41% chance of attempting suicide AND THIS IS A GOOD THING???"

[–]one1won 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

I've got to ask, did you squeak, jaw drop, or face plant at any point during this? I would've

[–]teacherterf[S] 5 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 2 fun6 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Constantly and repeatedly, but it was Zoom and my camera was off and my mic was muted. Enduring one of these in person will be a challenge.

[–]RationalNeutral 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (19 children)

The general idea is not that the actual raw number of transgender people has changed, just that the number of people who are feeling comfortable enough to be open / out and accepting treatment is increasing. If you had a group of 50 transgender people, and in hostile society 40 of them stayed in the closet, then this same hostile society became more accepting and suddenly only 10 are staying in the closet. You'd still have 50 transgender people in either circumstance. Just in a hostile society with 40 closeted people, those 40 people are in that high risk of suicide category, with only 10 open people properly receiving treatment. Meanwhile with the accepting society you only have 10 people in that high-risk of suicide category with 40 people openly receiving treatment. Overall in the more accepting society the suicide rate will go down.

[–]MarkTwainiac 10 insightful - 1 fun10 insightful - 0 fun11 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

The general idea is not that the actual raw number of transgender people has changed, just that the number of people who are feeling comfortable enough to be open / out and accepting treatment is increasing.

If this were the case, then we'd see female humans coming out as trans across all age groups like we see amongst males. But that's not happening.

Nearly all the females identifying as trans nowadays are teenagers and young women in their 20s. Moreover, the numbers of girls & young women seeking treatment at gender clinics has skyrocketed in the past decade. In the UK, for example, the number of girls under 18 seeking help for "gender dypshoria" increased by more than 4,400% since 2009.

If greater tolerance were the factor here, then in recent years a large cohort of middle-aged, senior and elderly women, including heterosexual mothers and grans, would have announced they are transmen on a scale equivalent to - or at least approaching - the huge number of heterosexual dads and grand dads who've announced they are transwomen. But, in fact, there are no female counterparts to the vast number of straight middle-aged and older fathers who've declared that they are women in recent years like Caitlyn Jenner, Jennifer Pritzker, Rachel Levine, Zoey Tur, Debbie Hayton, India Willoughby, Jennifer Finney Boylan and the thousands more like them.

Despite the climate of greater tolerance - indeed, of celebration - hardly any women have come out as trans in middle-age or later, in fact. And the very few that have, like Masha Gessen, are lesbians, not heterosexuals like the bulk of the males in and past middle age.

[–]teacherterf[S] 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Thanks for this. After some unproductive back-and-forths, I blocked the person you're replying to.

Re this:

If greater tolerance were the factor here, then in recent years a large cohort of middle-aged, senior and elderly women, including heterosexual mothers and grans, would have announced they are transmen on a scale equivalent to - or at least approaching - the huge number of heterosexual dads and grand dads who've announced they are transwomen.

Anecdotally, I have seen an uptick in middle-aged women declaring genderspecial identities. Usually they identify as nonbinary rather than "male", and none have the status of Jenner or Mock or Clymer. They seem to have a few things in common: they're white, they're plain-looking, they've always been at the cutting edge of trendy causes, their lives are not as interesting as they'd wanted for themselves, and they've always thought of themselves as being cooler than their age-peers. Usually they don't get hormones or surgery, or if they do, it's to achieve a "gender-neutral" look that still registers as female. Usually the extent of their identity is telling people what words to use to talk about them. I know one such woman in her 40s, and she has a tumblr that looks like it belongs a 15yo. I wonder if this is the female version of the AGP midlife crisis: older, immature white women distinguishing themselves from their out-of-touch peers (who are all Karens) in a way that is accessible to them, and that plenty of people will not only accept at face value but celebrate them for.

[–]MarkTwainiac 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

That's interesting about the women. The whole identity label thing is so alien to me. It seems so silly, juvenile & superficial - and it draws in those who are insecurity & heightens their insecurity. Social media is bringing out the absolute worst in our species.

[–]teacherterf[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yeah, I have some sympathy for teenagers who carry on this way. Teenagers are still figuring things out, and identity struggles are part of adolescence. I still think we'd avoid a lot of the excesses of this movement if adults responded by smiling and saying "mmm, that's nice" and moved on rather than falling over themselves to "affirm" every 14yo who declared that she was too special to be a she/her. Middle-aged women who do this are past the point where they can grow out of it, and I do everything I can to avoid spending more time with them than I have to.

[–]RationalNeutral 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

I don't understand how that correlation exists in your mind when historically the MtF transgender has been far more stigmatized than the FtM transgender. If not, quite regularly, the FtM transgender population gets almost entirely ignored because it is inconvenient for much of the propaganda that specifically attacks MtF transgender people in order to attack the transgender population as a whole.

[–]MarkTwainiac 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

historically the MtF transgender has been far more stigmatized than the FtM transgender.

In the 1960s MtF super celebrities like Christine Jorgensen and Candy Darling were stigmatized? World famous MtFs who "transitioned" in the 1970s like Jan Morris and Renee Richards were stigmatized? Really? I recall that all those persons were lionized. The press fawned over them. Morris and Richards in particular only gained social cachet and clout from becoming trans. Like Dave Thomas of the UK, a has-been noted snob & misogynistic journalist whose work no one was interested in anymore announced at 62 that he was really a woman, and suddenly the new writing assignments and publishing contracts came pouring in: voila, a weekly autobiographical feature-length column in the Sunday Telegraph documenting his "transition," and a book deal too. Plus, he's now doing fashion shoots. For women's mags. Stigmatized my ass.

the FtM transgender population gets almost entirely ignored because it is inconvenient for much of the propaganda that specifically attacks MtF transgender people in order to attack the transgender population as a whole.

Nah, mate, those of us who are women and feminists are not the ones who ignore TIFs. Most of us know quite a few personally, and know of others. Many of us have daughters, grand daughters, nieces, students, neighbors, acquaintances who are TIFs - or were. Many of the younger women here have friends, siblings, school mates, ex-lovers who are TIFs, or were.

"Trans allies" and TIMs are the ones who ignore TIFs, and a main reason is sexism and male supremacy. In the new social hierarchy, TIMs are top dog, the new sacred caste. Men don't lose their superior status when they go trans. Today, many gain status, becoming vaunted and praiseworthy just by donning a dress and mimicking the most superficial and sexist sex stereotypes.

TIFs only get attention from TRAs, TIMs and all the trans allies in the MSM and establishment circles when TIFs have babies & lobby for anti-woman policies (Freddie McConnell), when they serve as handmaidens for TIMs (Chase Strangio of the ACLU, for example, suing & lobbying for the right of males to get into girls/women's sports, women's shelters, women's prisons, women's loos), or they can be used as stalking horses (Gavin Grimm) and the proverbial thin wedge to make way for males invading female spaces.

the propaganda that specifically attacks MtF transgender people in order to attack the transgender population as a whole.

Women are defending the rights, sports, spaces, services and programs we fought hard for, and many of which we built from the ground up with no help from government & business. No women's rights advocate has ever assaulted a TIM. Though many TIMs have assaulted & raped women (and children), and some have even killed women. Women standing up for ourselves and our rights is not an attack on you personally or transgender persons. Pointing out the many conflicts between the demands of trans activists and the rights of women/girls and the safeguarding of children/the vulnerable is not the same as attacking people.

[–]RationalNeutral 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Interesting.

[–]RationalNeutral 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

One question: If a FTM transgender person tries to help a kid (and within reason does not act like a total creep in the process) will they be made out to be a complete predator?

[–]teacherterf[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

According to the presenter, the attempted suicide rate in our more accepting culture is 41%. What was it 10 years ago, when there were - conservative estimates - 1/10 as many out trans people as there are now? Even if it was 100%, that means that for every suicidal trans person in 2011, there are 4 suicidal trans people today. This is alarming.

[–]Archie 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I don't disagree with your remarks - but the 41% stat of the presenter is wrong, so this is a moot point. That infamous 41% stat is from a study with 27 self-reported samples. A bit ridiculous to base a world view on this.

Interestingly while we're talking about trans suicid, multiple recent studies support that surgery actually does not lower suicid rates. This could be a sign that we should try to adress the issue through other methods.

[–]RationalNeutral 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

On the one hand, you seem to be throwing numbers out at random hoping it sticks rather than doing actual math, but if you'd like to more carefully explain how you got a 4x ratio from that information, I'm happy to read your next attempt at statistics and respond to that rather than attempt to connect your dots for you.

One thing you don't seem to be comprehending very well is sampling bias. 10 years ago, if 1/10 as many transgender people were out, then that other 9/10 would not come forward and be known to be transgender or able to be factored in statistics.

On the other hand, our current culture is not very accepting at all, it is increasingly becoming more accepting, but still a long ways off. As acceptance increases the suicide attempt rate will likely decrease. This is because suicide risk for transgender patients falls to national baseline levels after starting to transition.

The 41% statistic is a "Have you attempted suicide at least once in your life if you are transgender?" statistic. For most transgender people, that attempt was prior to transitioning.

[–]teacherterf[S] 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (7 children)

LOL that a TRA is lecturing me on interpreting data, but, whatever:

If 10x as many trans people are out today than 10 years ago and there was a 100% attempted suicide rate back then, then for every 100 out trans people in 10 years ago, we'd have:

  • 100 attempted suicides among out trans people 10 years ago (100%)

  • 1000 out trans people today (10x as many)

  • 41% of whom have attempted suicide, making 41% of 1000 = 410 attempted suicides of out trans people today.

That's a ratio of 4.1, which I rounded down to 4 in my post. You're welcome to apologize to me for condescending to me when I was right, or I can block you. Your call!

As for "fewer people were out back then, so attempted suicides wouldn't be factored into statistics" - this is true. However, overall attempted suicide rates have increased, not decreased over the past decade. In the absence of evidence to the contrary it is standard practice in statistics to assume that attempted suicides among subsets of different populations, in this case trans people 10 years ago vs today, would follow similar trends as the general populations. The burden of proof is on you, not me, to show that trans people within a less-suicidal general population were in fact significantly more suicidal than trans people within a more suicidal general population. I'm open to reviewing data.

And your "suicide risk for transgender patients falls to national baseline levels after starting to transition" claim is also garbage: the most comprehensive data on this is from Sweden, which is among the more accepting countries for trans people. According to that study, for trans people who completed transition, the rate of completed suicide was found to be higher, by an estimated factor of twenty, than it was among the general population: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885

I think that's everything.

[–]RationalNeutral 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

The main problem with your premise is that with a 100% attempted suicide rate, a population of 1,000 out transgender people would result in 1,000 attempted suicides, using your own assumptions to compare similar population sizes a decade apart would support a claim of decreasing suicide risk.

Alternatively worded to be more clear:

Your assumption of 100% suicide attempts would be a 100 attempts per 100 people rate. The 41% statistic would then be 41 attempts per 100 people rate. As 41 is smaller than 100, this would be a decrease.

This would actually be a ratio of 0.41

If 1,000 is your favorite population size, then 1,000 to 410 attempts, respectively.

More bluntly 100% > 41%.

Should I continue? You've made it clear that anything but an apology would result in being blocked. If you're not going to read past this point, I don't know if it is worth the time typing out the rest of the flaws in your argument. Although, as it stands this reckless incompetence with statistical analysis is pretty jarring on its own merits.

[–]teacherterf[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

More bluntly, 100% > 41%

Yeeeeeah and we're done here. You are neither rational nor neutral. 41% of 1000 > 100% of 100. You need to compare the actual numbers of suicidal people. You're the one who needs to show that a decade ago, the raw number of closeted trans people who were attempting suicide was so large as to eclipse the number of trans people (both closeted and out) who are attempting suicide today. That's the only thing that would support your "there are fewer attempted suicides among trand people today than 10 years ago" claim.

But you're either not interested in doing that or not able to do that (probably both; your confidence in your analytical skills is completely unmoored from the reality), so, buh-bye.

[–]RationalNeutral 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

  1. I do not believe I made a claim, I was trying to explain how to correctly understand basic statistical information.

  2. We are talking about suicide rates which is a number that scales with the size of the population that is why it is expressed as a percentage or a X per Y number of people thing. A suicide rate actually has useful meaning for describing the likelihood someone afflicted with some circumstance may actually attempt suicide. The reason for this is because it paints a picture of the probability of suicidal ideation independent of the population size of the group in question.

Using raw numbers, as you have, has no real use for characterizing the risk of suicide without transitioning explicitly because it is dependent on population size.

The whole point of constructing an argument is to try and remove unrelated information from an argument whereas you are constructing the entirety of your argument from unrelated information.

This would be like trying to argue that a farm treats its chickens well because it has 1000 chickens rather than actually looking at anything of substance to determine whether or not it treats its chickens well.

[–]YourSister 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Your posts are so obviously male.