Questions about "The Transgender Industrial Complex" and related research

submitted by Fonched from self.debatealtright

Today I am seeking to share my thoughts on my read-through of “The Transgender Industrial Complex” written by Scott Howard, as well as invoke some other questions I have that spring off the book’s idea and its criticism.

This is a title I have heard of throughout, and it is one I have read from start to finish. From the surface level, I will say this book greatly presents itself with the attention to sources and detail and how the movement was propped up. However, after reading it, I am still left pondering the some of the facts it has presented, especially as to how it all connects together (I will admit, most of these chapters did not vary in terms of conent) and how it stands up to the grand scheme of things and LGBT science.

Criticisms of the book itself from others

Upon reading it, I decided to check what both sides have to say about the book and common theories about the rise of the movement. It has been lauded by many on the right, but was met with staunch opposition by others. Some lamented how the book made errors, such as believing such a small minority (apparently based entirely out of Davos) was behind all of gender ideology or that philantrophists. Most opted to take aim by guilt of association however, calling out average “gender criticals” for endorsing this book (“scratch a TERF, find a Nazi”) or by revealing what else publisher Antelope Hill sells.

Another prime example of criticism I would like to show is ”The Transgender Industrial Complex: Racist, Anti-Semitic Nonsense" by James Finn. https://medium.com/james-finn/the-transgender-industrial-complex-racist-anti-semitic-nonsense-e82edc20ef89 In this review, James Finn asserts that the book is incoherent in its research, pointing out how it states misconceptions about LGBT science, history, and oppression status. He derides its tone alongside deducing the conspiracy theories mentioned to scapegoating. He then briefly summarizes the book and relegates much of its investigation as “an absurdist flight of fantasy that deserves to be ignored”, believing Howard includes “lack of evidence as evidence of conspiracy”.

One point this review dissects is the John Money scandal, which he says was “The Transgender Industrial Complex”’s only explanation for gender identity science. While Money’s work was fundamental, it was said to have been diminished over time, with today’s researchers alleging a biological basis for gender dysphoria rather than the partially-environmental approach Money took on. As with one of the popular rebuttals to gender criticals, Finn also points out how Howard is ignorant of transgender people’s individual experiences, and how gender non-conforming people have existed throughout history with little manipulation.

Overall this book hadn’t reached high levels of awareness among the Left, although it was clear that the ones that knew of it were highly outspoken as usual and that its theories are still criticized to more popular audiences sans this book.

My own criticisms plus other outside points

Now here are some of my own points relating to what the Transgender Industrial Complex has brought up and other concepts closely related to the book. While it tried at the start, I never saw an adequate detail to refuting some of the arguments and science its opponents were hedging their bets on.

One ongoing question I have, alongside my research into homosexuality is Howard’s writing on the famed Evelyn Hooker study, titled “Adjustment of the overt male homosexual”. While it points out the study wasn’t all that excellent (despite being one of the biggest keys to normalizing LGBT) I am highlighting some facts that contradict what was said in the book.

What was not stated in the book was that the “Overt male homosexual” study was replicated several times, always to the same results. Meanwhile, a reply to my previous thread mentioned changes to psychological studies, which could have rendered the study worthless. Despite the left being heavily involved in the latest scientific research, I don’t know why they would still revere similar studies from the time in the end. I am also not sure how excluding potential subjects in psychiatric care was touted as a benefit. Meanwhile, as with many studies, the LGBT community state that small sample sizes such as those in said study are caused by the lack of suitable same-sex couples available for research. There is also another point that strongly detracts from a mental illness standpoint, in that such desires do not directly impede day-to-day lifestyles.

I had previously asked about evidence for LGBT identities being of peer contagion/other controllable circumstances, rather than biological/genetic nature. In connection to this topic, I have found a few more studies that suggest strongly for a non-controllable background within the brain and body. https://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/72674087/#72675158

This does include insight into the notion of autogynephilia, touched on within this book. Such has been challenged by scholar Julia Serano among others; this is in contrast to its founder, Ray Blanchard whose ideas have been frequently challenged by the community and his methods discredited (in the mentions depicted above).

The topic of multi-gender societies is also addressed here. While not as certifying, such an argument still leaves room to suggest that it is natural and that the existence of a transgender Industrial complex wouldn’t have much of an effect on gender identity sprouting up. There are even a few instances of this occurring within Western societies, such as Neapolitan Femminielli.

I would certainly like to know if Howard’s writings have confirmed some sort of false facade behind these studies, or if there is research that trumps all of this anyway and confirms otherwise.

Additional sources

https://www.juliaserano.com/av/Serano-CaseAgainstAutogynephilia.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19591032 (93% cis women would be autogynephiliacs through Blanchard’s methods) https://web.archive.org/web/20201112033716/https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Autogynephilia https://saidit.net/s/debatealtright/comments/7zsh/lgbt_discussion_science_morality_history/ (my previous thread, if anyone would like to carry on the discussion or reference back to something we posted there)

all 13 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Oh the irony of the left trying to fall back on biological essentialism -- something they vehemently reject in nearly every other facet of life -- to defend their ridiculous lies. 'Oh look this kid has a long corpus colossum, guess we better sterilize it and cut it's dick off! It's a BIOLOGICAL FACT he's a girl trapped in a boys body.' Doubly frustrating because the entire method of diagnosis is psychological. Don't don't probe these biological matters to determine if a child is trans they ask them questions.

There's always been tom boys and effeminate men which definitely has some rootedness in the complexity of their biology. Most of the time in history we just accepted that and these people got on with their lives as overall wearing slightly more masculine women and the boys got on with being men who had more of an interest in muscial theatre than the average Joe.

What's happened in our age is the utterly deranged and sickening option has been offered mainly due to advancements in medical science to people to transition themselves and mutilate their bodies and demand a social position which acknowledges that they are not actually largely superficial versions of the other sex but actually the 'real deal' so to speak. This is just late stage civilizational behaviour.

As with nearly all mental illnesses in society today I think what you're looking at is just much deeper and fundamental problems with society manifesting themselves in a variety of ways 'trans' being only one of them.

[–]Blackbrownfreestuff 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

you're looking at is just much deeper and fundamental problems with society manifesting themselves in a variety of ways 'trans' being only one of them.

I think decadence plays a role here. Life is too easy for far too many people in the west in the current year.

Another cause of our sick society is social media. People look at their facebook and instagram and their twatter all day, being told what to think or dreaming up new ways to virtue signal. It's rotting everyones brain.

[–]Fonched[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

What is an example of the Left rejecting biological essentialism as applied to matters not pertaining to homosexuality/transgenderism? I don't quite seem to remember this. I could see the tomboy/effeminate male thing perhaps being marcated by the studies (where it is mislabeled as desires to cross over to the other sex), but that I cannot confirm nor deny it. The surgery portion certainly is shocking, though, and I would like to point out to the readers that transitioning isn't the same as getting surgery (just to clear things up).

Now about the notion that this would be the sign of a decling empire, I'm not too sure yet. A similar analogy is that the liberal classicists are against the idea that the Roman Empire declined due to uncontrollable amounts of immigration.

[–]literalotherkinNorm MacDonald Nationalism 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What is an example of the Left rejecting biological essentialism as applied to matters not pertaining to homosexuality/transgenderism?

Race and sex. They completely reject biological essentialism out of hand and think that essentially Blacks, Whites, men, women and every other category of humanity is the same biologically and favour the idea that societal factors are what creates differences hence their embrace of goofy nonsense like 'gender neutral' toy aisles among other things. A biological essentialist like me would look at the great data we have where male and female infant chimps actually show the same toy preferences -- female chimps prefer dolls, boy chimps prefer things like trucks -- as human children and say these are evolved tendencies whereas the left mostly thinks you can just tweak the environment and remove the differences.

Now about the notion that this would be the sign of a decling empire, I'm not too sure yet.

It's a big question. You might be interested in the work of Camille Paglia who describes similar exotic social/sexual trends in late stage Rome. She's the only living feminist I think is actually worth reading and listening to.

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

Alright, so I am not sure about the first part. Is there a meeting between rejection and approval of biological essentialism when it comes to sex/gender there?

And thanks for the recommendation. I'll see what entails next.

[–]IkeConn 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Trannies would disgust me if they weren't so pathetic.

[–]Fonched[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

I agree on that part, but I am in the research process right now. While they provide some leniency if one is disgusted by their sight, they still exclaim how it's a human right for them to exist based on other factors and that homosexual/transgender people are not disgusted themselves.

[–]EuropeanAwakening14 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

No one is saying transgender or GD people don't have a right to exist. They shouldn't influence society.

[–]nordmannenLegionnaire 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

What demarcates the difference? By existing, people influence society. You can marginalize people, but until they are completely removed from society they still can influence it. I'm not suggesting something immoral should be done, but I'm not sure I understand how you can accomplish the latter part of your statement if the former is true.

[–]blackpoop321 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

What demarcates the difference?

From their own verbiage, the "closet". They can exist peacefully and be a functional part of society while remaining inside "the closet".

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

Now I am trying to find out whether it is bad that they are influencing society, or if they will inevitably do so or not.

[–]blackpoop321 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

There is also another point that strongly detracts from a mental illness standpoint, in that such desires do not directly impede day-to-day lifestyles.

How is that a "strong" point? The "day-to-day" lifestyles of the modern city dweller are very artificial. Without society and a justice system wrongly protecting them, the gays would get bashed and therefore would not get a chance to reproduce via child molestation.

The entire purpose of sexual attraction is to ensure our species is driven to reproduce, if one is attracted to a reproductive dead-end, something is broken in their brain.

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

This is in comparison to other mental illnesses, and this is a disqualifying factor in homosexuality being a mental illness because “homosexuality per se implies no impairment in judgment, reliability or general social and vocational capabilities.” (APA, 1975). There may still be more fronts on which it is a mental illness. Meanwhile as to city-dwelling lifestyles that many homosexuals live in, there are exceptions throughout and I don't think that their homosexual traits affect the pace of their lifestyle.

Regarding reproduction and homosexuals, there are certain avenues they can take such as surrogacy and sperm donation (as well as a few other methods in the works) on top of some pansexual/gender non-conforming couples that can reproduce in typical fashion.

As for molestation, this has been one of our theories aside from toxoplasmosis, competing with mainstream theories of it having a biological basis. Meanwhile there have been studies that have sought to disprove the connection - https://archive.md/Odl93 (Myth #3).