Speaking as a dyed in the wool sceptic or skeptic (I suppose both is correct in English): I still find it confusing that of all people American sceptics have been incapable of seeing right through the pseudo- and antiscience of gender ideology and its religious properties. Sceptics by definition try to apply critical and scientific thinking to social issues of any sort. This is what makes sceptics sceptics. In fact, this is why I have been opposing trans ideology ever since I became aware that it wasn't just something on the lunatic fringe but slowly infiltratring every area of policy making, academic education and pre-political spaces. I honestly don't get why my organized US counterparts require people to abandon all critical and scientific thinking in this regard. Now, I understand why people may fall for this ideology when they don't have a lot of experience with lobbies, esoterics and the like. Trans ideology uses ALL manipulative techniques used by esoterics, pseudomedicine and religious fundamentalists to convince an unsuspecting public. This ranges from the arbitrary redefinition of established and scientific terms, the coining of new scientific sounding terms, cherry picking data and results, appeal to emotion and authority to outright falsehoods. Trans ideology employs them to an extent I have not observed anywhere else. And believe me, I have seen quite a bit. How anyone with any experience in debunking fairy tales can not see that is beyond me. I rather suspect that organized US sceptics have made the deliberate choice to ignore the plentiful evidence. Conciously or not, they are aware of this - which explains why they are so much on the offense on this topic. Shouting out their new creed is the only way to silence their manifest doubts about it. If it didn't have much wider political and social implications this would be just tragic. As it does, it's a disgrace and a danger.
Indeed, the TRA arguments are often like logical fallacy bingo. They're so laced with holes I could use them as a doily. My belief is that people don't see it for many reasons - they have something in it for them (usually money); they don't know enough but stick to a "it's nice to be nice" rhetoric because they're sheeple; they're scared of the consequences personally. The way this is going, many more folk are going to have to choose a hill to die on before this is over though.
“Trans ideology uses ALL manipulative techniques used by esoterics, pseudomedicine and religious fundamentalists to convince an unsuspecting public. This ranges from the arbitrary redefinition of established and scientific terms, the coining of new scientific sounding terms, cherry picking data and results, appeal to emotion and authority to outright falsehoods.”
Excellent points, Chris. This passage should be a pull quote for your post. For the gullible public of progressive lefties in blue US states, the issue of trans rights/TWAW is simply the next stop in the arc-thingie that bends towards whatsit. (Thx Graham.) For this crowd, the only mental work required is mastering new lingo, and a new set of arguments and counter-arguments. Skeptical gender-critical questioning simply looks like bigotry to them.
As well, progressive trans activists are vastly influential in blue state & national politics (also corporate, media, and academia nationwide). So your suspicion that skeptics have deliberately chosen to ignore the plentiful evidence is probably correct. Like ordinary people, skeptics fear losing jobs, influence, funding. They don’t want to lose their friends, or be disowned by their children.
But US politicians are getting pushback. Lawsuits have been filed challenging transfer of male felons into women's prisons. Democrats lost the governorship of Virginia, partially as a result of trans ideology in school districts. The story of Penn swimmer Lia Thomas broke. Even Caitlyn Jenner has stated opposition to bio males competing against girls and women (as a true athlete would). So while skeptics haven’t yet saddled up, ordinary US voters strongly resist trans ideology. Fingers crossed.
“I honestly don't get why my organized US counterparts require people to abandon all critical and scientific thinking..” Follow the money, maybe? In order to land $$ grant funding for their proposals, research scientists may have to exhibit fealty to certain non scientific policy positions.
As well, in a cutthroat scientific environment, competitors may have an incentive to “out” scientists who are truly skeptical of funders' or institutions' required positions on sex/gender. By tanking the grant proposals of actually skeptical scientists, competitors increase their own chances of getting funding?
Not sure of this as a fact, but in questioning why scientists are so supine on what seems so obvious to GC us, I have to assume factors in the research-funding enterprise that we're not aware of. And if so, it’s outrageous. Institutions' and funders' boards of directors must be challenged, if this is true.
I did notice that Finn Mackay, a lecturer at University of the West if England, -who I think likes to be referred to as "they" and has recently published a book entitled 'Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars' , - has a successful track record in receiving grants from The ESRC (UK Research Council).
It is not as simple as that. It more has to do with how scientific results are being published. Now, that certainly has a lot, if not everything, to do with capitalist markets/publishing industries but the connection isn't as straightforward as you may think. Actually, there aren't many papers out there that seem to support the cause of trans ideology. None of them, to my knowledge, really stands up to scientific scrutiny - at least not inasmuch as they are supposed to say what TRAs say they say. The issue is rather that the explosion of cases now affects very different groups of people and meaningful research in that area has become a lot more difficult. Science can not switch off the societal environment in which it is supposed to be conducted. Just finding enough gender dysphoric teenagers to allow you to conduct a long term blinded study will be next to impossible. You'd have a serious problem with the control group. There is so much pressure on parents and teenagers to take hormone blockers that very few of them will consent to either not get them at all or "risk" getting a placebo. (Although I'm not sure if a placebo would even work in this case.) And then you couldn't rule out that some of the patients get their hands on puberty blockers behind your back. The other thing is that longitudinal studies with that group are very difficult. There is little incentive for teenagers to further participate in a study once they have come of age. Most likely they'd be referred to other doctors or clinics and you'd get out of touch with them - and why would they want to reach out to you again? That's particulary true if they find out that "transitioning" didn't solve their problems. I mean, essentially this would mean that you'd have to go back to the scientists from the study who you've told all these years that you were "trans" and tell them: "Well, guess what, I've been wrong". You are not likely to do that when you're 19 or 21. You might do that when you're 35. That's why for now the only people who have any data on gender dysphoric youths are the ones that have a stake in medicalizing them.
I'm more surprised that the British sceptic community seems to have mostly fallen for it. American scepticism has been tiptoeing around established/mainstream religion for decades because apparently they don't make testable claims (how do you test a belief in the resurrection). US sceptics tend to go after fringe beliefs like bigfoot, dowsing, homeopathy etc that can more easily be tested in a lab. The US is such a religious/spiritual country that going full Atheist would've alienated too many people for the community to be viable. From that angle US sceptics rolling over for transgenderism doesn't seem so surprising if you see it as a new faith with beliefs so nebulous that its claims are basically untestable.
Staying neutral about religion and embracing a specific one are two very different things. I'm somewhat active in the Austrian sceptic community. We also tend not to discuss established religion. I support this stance, in spite of my also being a secular activist (at least sometimes). You inevitably get yourself into a terrible mess once you start going down that road and alienate members and symathizers who may be vaguely religious. Besides, in one form or another religion will quite often play into your activities anyways, as it is quite often a basis - or claimed to be a basis - of whatever superstition you are looking into. Now, so far Austrian sceptics have not dealt with trans ideology and certainly not embraced it. Given current developments, I hope this stays this way - although the voice of sceptics is desparately needed. The chance that the organized part would roll over is just too great at the moment and that would cause a lot of harm.
"Now, so far Austrian sceptics have not dealt with trans ideology and certainly not embraced it. Given current developments, I hope this stays this way - although the voice of sceptics is desparately needed."
What's the point of skeptic orgs if they just sit on the sidelines of topics that they really should have opinions on? There's no point in talking the talk if you won't walk the walk when the time comes.
You got it! When I first discovered fundamentalist atheists, I was like What the fuck?!?!? The first thing one should be skeptical about is any widespread belief, especially when it's being bankrolled by the scum of society (billionaires).
I’ve been confused for some time by the way numerous skeptics just went all-in to trans ideology. I used to listen to a good number of skeptical podcasts, until they all started parroting the TWAW mantra without any discussion. I still listen to a couple that mostly discuss other topics, but even they mention it more and more.
“Oh No Ross and Carrie” mainly discuss other things, with occasional kowtowing to TWAW, but recently played an interview that Ross did at a skeptic conference. It was interesting that the last question was along the lines of “If you were going to fall for a scam or illogical belief, what would it be?”, and he said it would be something that was supposed to help people or the environment, and then suggested maybe some scam to do with Climate Change. I, of course, was mentally shouting Trans Ideology! Actually think about it! You want to help people who are suffering, so have switched off your skeptical thought processes!
There is also a UK Skeptical podcast that only mentions any negative opinions about trans ideology in relation to weirdo conspiracy theorists. But then one of the hosts went on a rant about how his partner had trouble getting a huge breast enhancement (that she’d always wanted and would make her happy apparently) because the very good plastic surgeon they spoke to refused to do it, as it was not suitable for her, in his professional opinion. So they found another one who would do it! This is a podcast that has numerous discussions about homeopathy, and preventing the NHS paying for it as there is no proof it actually works, and also many episodes discussing the fallacy of the placebo effect, and scams for treating cancer, and so on. But they refuse to look at the whole Trans scam! Utterly insane.
Oh wow, what brave souls, tackling homeopathy. Which no one is shoving down their throats. I love the beliefs these people supposedly tackle, seemingly beliefs that don't harm anyone, but I'll bet they believe in capitalism and the medical-industrial complex (that's where you get giant breasts which may very well cause lifelong medical problems) and democracy and piles of other crap.
Ah well, homeopathy is shoved down many people's throats. Pharmacies may suggest it to people who never asked for it and have no idea what it is. Happened to a friend of mine who wanted to buy medication for his dog. He didn't even know how to pronounce homeopathy. He was talked into buying some globuli. Rather predictably, his dog needed surgery because her condition was left untreated. Effective medication would probably have done the job. That's not an isolated case. That being said: The widespread acceptance of pseudomedicine and how it is being pushed by quite a few groups is one of the pillars socially accepted science denial rests on. Trans ideology is just a very extreme form of this science denial. And: You underestimate the pressure pseudomedicine lobbies can exert. They pull everything from frivolous lawsuits to silence critics to not so subtle smear campaigns - that are quite effective. A lot of the strategies trans ideology employs have been successfully tested by pseudomedicine lobbies.
I use homeopathic formulas, the first of which was used by my foster daughter's soccer coach to treat injuries, Arnica montana. Highly effective for pain, muscle strain, bruising, etc, particularly for those of us who indulged in sports.
Your friend needed to take his dog to a veterinarian to find out what was wrong. You don't take something or give it to your pet or child because someone told you to do so.
Pseudomedicine lobbies? That's called Big Pharma here and they are killing the public with their desire -- as stated by a former pharma rep -- to have everyone of all ages taking 8 to 10 of their poisons a day. I'm not saying there aren't effective medications, but they need to be taken carefully and with a great deal of thought. The only thing I take daily is my thyroid replacement and I don't take what Big Pharma pushes; I take natural desiccated thyroid which makes it possible for me to walk and talk and think. I think you should visit Stop the Thyroid Madness and check out what thyroid patients have to say about doctors.
Are you familiar with the four stages of spiritual growth as outlined by M Scott Peck? (He simplified a longer list.) 1) Chaos; 2) orthodoxy; 3) skepticism; 4) mysticism. Your "skeptical" colleagues are obviously still stuck in orthodoxy, which at the moment declares that trans is real and the province of the most marginalized people ever. It's interesting to watch people not actually mature, but fall back into chaos or orthodoxy when it's too much trouble to be SKEPTICAL.
I am saying what I see. Those who argue as he does, do not give a shiny shit about women and girls. This ideology only got this far, because the foundational belief is that woman and girls are not fully human, and only represent the lack of something male; a stereotype. How that belief was enacted in policy primarily affects women and girls. Only later has it been challenged on other grounds, such as Freedom of Speech, when people started noticing that women were being suppressed.
You will not find transmen (women who identify as men) in their arguments because they are irrelevant to them. They don't even bother to offer up dodgy arguments as to why transmen are men because they don't even care to pretend to believe it. Meanwhile, the harms of transitioning come disproprotionately to girls and young women - the effects of testosterone on the female body are awful.
I don't know whether you are male or female, but I am so utterly sick of philosophical arguments about what a woman is. Especially when they are conducted by men.
I am not discounting other factors in play, but fundamentally this is a war on women.
Don't worry, I don't take this as a personal attack. It's just that I am reluctant to make any assumptions as to what other people think. People are very good at discovering patterns where there are none and they are very good at convincing themselves that whatever it is they do or think is actually a good thing. I agree with you that this is overall a war on women. Most of the participants have simply not understood this and have been lead to believe or lead themselves to believe that they are actually fighting for women and children. Once down that road they just block out any evidence to the contrary. It's not the first time something like this happens. We just live in an environment that greatly encourages such phenomenons.
Every time I've come in contact with a man with "superior thinking skills," it turns out he's barely got a room temperature IQ. We had a legislator in Maine who bragged about his "man brain"; someone asked me if he sat on it and I said no, it's in his little head and he's confused about which head is which.
Sceptics believe in gender ideology??? What the actual feck?!! In that case they're no longer hard-minded Sceptics, then, but simple-minded Susceptibles.
As a dyed in the wool sceptic I couldn't agree more. It's a disgrace of and attack at everything the sceptic movement has achieved over the past decades.
I commented above but US sceptic organisations have something of a hands off approach regarding organised religion and spiritualism in general. They'll go after creationism but not biblical miracles like feeding the 5,000 or the resurrection. If they can't test a hypothesis in the here and now they often just leave it alone. Gender Identity isn't testable in any meaningful way so it's not considered to be something that would get a person cast out of the ingroup like believing in Bigfoot or homeopathy...
Oh, trans ideology can be tested to a considerable extent. Many of its claims are of a nature we never accept as a basis for anything other than the people making the claims believe in them. About one in ten adults for instance will believe that they have been visited by a recently deceased loved one in the course of their lives in the US. That belief is an indisputable fact - as belief. No sceptic association would consider this to be an indication that ghosts actually exist. You could never set up designs that would rule out those ghosts entirely, simply because you couldn't ethically nor practically all people who recently lost a love to an extent that would. But as there are many more plausible explanations for these apparitions than ghosts and as ghosts would require an extraordinary amount of evidence, you can dimiss the idea as long as no one ever turns up with any convincing evidence to the contrary. Trans ideology is not so much different in this respect.
It gets me how many people who identify as atheists and/or skeptics refuse to consider the possibility that trans people are simply deluded in the same way that they consider religious people to be deluded. They can 'agree to disagree' with religious people without denouncing them but if a religious person is offended by their lack of belief or their belief that religiosity is fundamentally a delusion then the attitude is frequently "so what?" rather than "how can I make you feel more valid?". But Trans people need to be believed and accommodated without question.
Although just one caveat: Transpeople seem to suffer from genuine and often severe mental health issues. Religious people mainly do not. So, on an individual level, these things should be addressed differently because they are (even though there is strong connection). On a societal level I see no fundamental difference.
Hopefully you're right, but even people without mental health issues can behave in insane ways in the right situations. Are suicide bombers mentally ill? What about people who bomb abortion clinics? Or someone who takes part in ethnic cleansing? We might reach a point in the next few years where the average trans person is no more mentally ill than the average Christian...
I will agree with the "mainly do not," but when you live in a country (the U.S.) where a sizable portion of the population believes in the rapture I think you can say that a sizable portion of the population has severe mental health issues.
Religious beliefs are ultimately a sign of gullibility and of the shortcomings of the human brain. The tendency to religious beliefs seems to be a direct result of our neurological anatomy. Whether or not we hold religious beliefs is then mainly due to socialisation. You don't need mental health to explain that. Although religious beliefs are an excellent basis for developping severe mental health issues.
Except that belief in spirits is universal to all cultures. That’s very different! I think this fact and looking at how the Sceptics aren’t being scientific at all here shows the vulnerability in so-called scientific organizations. They’re inhabited by people, not robots, and it comes down to the egos of primarily men in a patriarchal society. I’ve just come to see how materialism as a belief system steers so much of the activity, not altruistic “scientific” ones. Thanks for posting. So many intelligent, engaging people that comment on Glinner’s Substack! Definitely thinkers.
Yes! I am reading Robin Wall Zimmerer's Braiding Sweetgrass; she is both indigenous and a scientist. She writes of the indigenous belief that trees talk to one another and how "scientists" pooh-poohed that because their minds could not move beyond animal communication. And of course now we know that trees do talk to one another, both through the wind and the fungi that provide them with minerals in exchange for carbohydrates. Looking forward to reading The Hidden Life of Trees.
I don’t think there’s been much “science” occurring in the USA since corporate industry became so profitable with their petroleum products around WWII. Dr. Vandana Shiva is trained I believe in Nuclear Physics but has spent her efforts on biological matters, such as fighting for seed sovereignty on behalf of agriculturists. She so inspires me, and is clearly a person of faith as well. Now “scientists” are inventing things like dark matter to attempt to bring their theories in line with recent observations, while downplaying the fact that their theories did not predict what is now being seen with advanced telescopic instruments! Cosmology has a crisis going on, with an exponential rise of the filing of academic papers in 2019. Gerda Lerner stated that patriarchy began by historical process and so can be ended the same way. I’m up for it! I’m so excited to be alive, lately, and sometimes a pop song captures it succinctly. “Right here, right now/ There is no other place I’d rather be/ Right here, right now/ Watching the world wake up from history.” - Jesus Jones 🤪
Why aren't Sceptics be scientific in this regard? That there is a belief in spirits and ghosts in all societies has been documented, mainly using materialist methods, by the way. I.e. one observes and describes the claims of a given society in this regard without making the assumption that these claims prove the actual existence of these supernatural entities. Being scientific when it comes to these matters also means to recognize the limitations of scientific research. It will probably never be possible to disprove the existence of ghosts and spirits. But it will also probably - and to a higher degree - never be possible to prove their existence, either. Given everything else we know about spirits and ghosts, we can safely dismiss them as relevant in any scientific sense. (Note: The belief in them remains a relevant issue.) But let's get back to trans ideology in this context. This is not as different as it may appear. We can demonstrate that the beliefs in spirits and ghosts depend on the material and social conditions of a society. How many people believe they ever saw or heard one is very different between societies and changes considerably within any given society over time. This also goes for which ghosts and spirits people believe there are about and claim to see. It can also be demonstrated that how people deal with apparitions that can be interpreted as ghosts or spirits changes drastically over time - meaning that people are a lot more likely to secondguess their own observations if they live in a society where the belief in supernatural entities is less present than in others. As banal as this may seem - it is exactly the same thing we see with trans ideology. And let's let aside the fact that trans ideology ultimately rests on the idea of a very ghostlike "true inner self" and this is closely connected to historical beliefs in a spirit world - even then we can show that the belief in trans ideology directly correlates to the possibilities of modern medicine and ideological currents in Western societies. Until someone can demonstrate that transsexualism is innate, i.e. that people are actually "born in the wrong body", the safest assumption is that this is just another form of belief in supernatural entities, produced by the society it emanates from.
The belief you are born with the desire to wear dresses and highheels ultimately is a belief in a supernatural substance or entity that entered you before birth. Or in other words: It is the belief that there is an Inner and True Self that is somehow there and somehow more true than your Outer Self. This is, incidentally, a common motif in American religiosity and has deeply shaped New Age Esoterics.
In real Science with a capital “S,” absence of evidence doesn’t equal evidence of absence. I survived evangelical abuse in childhood, never believed in any gods or spirits, and never would I get my ideas about physical reality solely from books of any kind. However, from my analysis of how “civilized” institutions public and private operate, I wouldn’t look to them as being anything other than than the biased organizations that they are. They don’t exist for altruistic purposes, anyway. Materialism is also a belief system, and The Big Bang is just a theory. An outdated one, at that, but decidedly better than The Jesus Story, IMHO. To me, the whole techno-medicine complex operates as a business first and foremost, and most often I’m left wondering where the heck the science is? True, there are many silly, superstitious religious beliefs, but the medical industry has plenty of them too, like psychosurgery and blaming mothers for causing their child’s autism, etc., etc., etc. in a litany of abuse. There’s precious little science in it, and far more control. If I believed for one minute that I’m just a bag of chemicals and my consciousness is just an illusory byproduct of the goo in my cranium, why should I bother to endure all this social insanity, as I’m a person with low social status? I choose to live in the mystery of “I don’t know” and if more medical practitioners did as well, most likely they wouldn’t harm so many people. The application of technology doesn’t equal science. It’s business that produces profit and social status for those who practice it. Check out the current crisis in Cosmology for more information, as I’m not formally educated past the eighth grade, but I assure you, it’s paradigm shattering. Time for a new model!
Part II: In order for materialism to be a religion, it should meet at least some criteria. Unlike religions, materialism does not have a set of elaborated doctrins. Unlike religions, it does not require anyone to adhere to a strict set of behaviors. Unlike religions, it can not bring forth a clerical calls on its own. Unlike religions, it does not appeal to things inherently unknowable and does not require anyone to believe in things inherently unknowable. Unlike religions it does not per se claim to be morally superior. In fact, morals are of secondary concern to materialism. Materialism is foremost a tool to acquire and expand knowledge in the most rational way we know. It can, of course, be applied to fields other than science and the scientific process. It frequently is, in fact. In these cases it is always embedded in a set of processes and does not dictate fixed outcomes. Liberalism and socialism are the two political directions that have competed against each other for most of the past 150 years or so. Both are deeply rooted in materialism. Both have yielded very different outcomes - when compared to each other as well as within each respective system. If materialism were a religion as you claim this would most likely not be the case.
What do the two of you mean by materialism? I believe in material reality as I'm guessing both of you do. I believe in what someone's senses can tell them if their senses are not colored by a diseased brain. But I think there are many things we cannot see or hear or document -- at least at present -- that may exist without our tiny selves being able to detect them. Life is far more subtle and complex and thrilling than Western reductionist science often tells us. Look at our view of animals, incredibly limited and stupid until recently. We were so enamoured of ourselves -- a key feature of patriarchal culture -- we forgot we are only a small part of a beautiful world, which we are now destroying in our arrogance.
“Western reductionist science” is precisely what I mean. I know the term liberal can sure mean different things in different contexts, and I’m mostly self-taught after eighth grade, so I lack the vocabulary that comes more from a formal education to debate ideas with. It’s probably my womanly intuition that niggles at me. To me, patriarchy is worship of the might-makes-right principle. That’s okay for other animals, but the human animal with reason? Nothing at all is rational about patriarchy. It’s just the group narcissism of males. I see civilized people as the most cut off from the fullness of physical reality in a way that natural human groups aren’t. Surely this way of existence is diminishing us, and has filled the ocean with plastic? I don’t see anything at all rational about it, and when I started seeing it as a response to human (mainly male) fear of Nature’s processes, that’s when it started making sense to me! 🎵”…Watching the world wake up from HIStory!” 🎶 Yeah, probably just a silly woman’s intuition. 😉
Have they really yielded very different outcomes? Always the outcome of massive inequality. I’d like to be allowed to leave it, but always there’s a dominator to say no. How many of us experience it more as a prison when a few actually collect the most to themselves for their own crazy control obsessions? Mostly this thing you’re calling science seems like mental masturbation to me. I’ve lost respect for it, as those who consider themselves to be the authorities of it have just made too many errors. Plastic garbage patch in the ocean? Technology (or tool-making) brought science which brought plastic? Something is deeply flawed about it, and a kind of vitality is missing. Denying anything but physical matter exists is a statement of belief. Again, I don’t have the language, but I assure you that I don’t misunderstand the scientific process like you think I do. Just don’t admire it like I used to and can see its failings more than others who are more in tune with this biologically demented way of living. Exploring consciousness is probably what I do best, so I’ll stick to that instead of commenting on topics I’m unable to debate due to the extrajudicial punishment cancelling my education, and hence producing social death. I’d rather live amongst humane people than in the prison sewer built by science and civilized people. Paradigm shift ahead!
I think it is fair to say that your understanding of science and the scientific method seems a bit incomplete. Science is by definition practised materialism - regardless of the beliefs individual scientists may hold. This means that hypothesis are formed and experiments are conducted explicitely without assuming that supernatural powers or entities influence the observable world or have any influence on the outcome. Science and the scientific method are also by definition not just altruistic affairs - although broadening our understanding of the world is certainly altruistic in a wider sense. That science and the scientific method are sometimes, and in some areas quite often, used, abused and misused for other purposes does not speak against science itself. In human history everything humans do has been corrupted and used by some against the rest. Agriculture for instance was also instrumental in establishing power structures, withholding food was and is used as a means of punishment or to force the will of one group on another. Growing food has been used to enrich people and we can assume that the establishment of agriculture correlated with the idea of private property. Should we then assume agriculture to be a bad thing? And yes, science has walked down many blind alleys in the past. Some of these aberrations have harmed countless people. It will happen in the future, too. Science is always the sum of the best knowledge available at the time. Any serious scientist will tell you that, by the way. Science is the process of and the wish to continously expand our knowledge the best way we know. Materialism is a key instrument in that.
Well, I have little respect left for materialism, perhaps. It has become its own religion with its own priesthoods. Science is an outgrowth of technology, not the other way around. Patriarchy was invented in historical times, and the processes which led to agriculture and civilization are not at all understood by those who claim authority over science and disciplines. In the abstract, it sounds great, but the practice suffers from all the flaws of male domination. My understanding of what is called civilization looks like something more of a trauma response to nature’s processes than any inherent stroke of brilliance that’s promoting evolution or some lofty abstract concept like that. Why assume agriculture is “good?” It destroys soil as well as human health and fosters this continuing codependent saga of male domination. I’m not getting this attitude from you specifically, but so often if I question any of these “scientific” authorities the attitude I get clearly is that the viewpoint I hold isn’t valid, and I should be grateful for being allowed to exist in their society. That’s as creepy a claim to ownership as any organized religion, and upon as flimsy a basis. Never found too much value in psychology as I’m a survivor of abuse in childhood by multiple practitioners in that industry, but what I’ve learned in recent years about narcissism (and personality disorders) seems accurate enough to explain for me why our institutions are so screwy and these social contagions repeat! Well, I’ll just leave it at that. Since I’ve survived what I have, I think I’ll stick to living in the mystery of it all and be glad I’m one of those fighting madness instead of producing it. Nothing at all wrong with my mind, or demanding higher quality of life, even though others in positions of authority are so deeply defective that I’ve lost respect for them and don’t serve up to them the obeisance that they think they deserve. Check into the crisis in cosmology if you dare. Paradigm shift ahead!
Why is agriculture good for instance? Because it feeds us. Without it, billions of people would die. Or would have never existed. Our entire culture rests on it. You are free, of course, to consider this a bad outcome and to prefer for mankind to exist in maybe a few million individuals worldwide, living on barely a subsistence base. You'll just have to live with most people considering that a bit extreme. Why is science good? It has doubled our life spans within a very short period of time, for instance. It enables us to communicate with each other over vast distances. It has done much to much to better the position of many marginalized groups - women most of all - in our society. We can discuss what the flaws and dark sides are and why they are there any whether or not we should consider them more in our overall judgements. To chuck out these things entirely seems a bit unfounded for me.
Is everyone such a literalist? Feeding the 5,000 and the resurrection are only taken literally by people who think the world was created 6,000 years ago. I find literalism to be extremely limited and mentally damaging. And who cares if someone thinks Sasquatch actually exists? (There's an indigenous version here in Maine; who am I to tell people who have lived here for thousands of years what they saw or didn't see? Indigenous stories often have far more truth in them than Western reductionist so-called science, more accurately termed technology, which is not science.)
Quite often when you check indigenous cultures you'll find that many of the tales they tell now are not as old as people believe. This goes for many Western fairly tales and Western folklore as well. It's just that usually people don't attach any deeper meaning to those anymore.
Does Austria have indigenous cultures? I think not. Maine, U.S.A., has indigenous people; I respect their culture and was surprised to learn that there are people who do not even know they exist. You can't check how old a story is because they did not write things down, they passed them down through the generations. For example, when they went searching for one of those not-very-bright arctic explorers, the indigenous people told them stories that were quite accurate about the men. Yes, that wasn't very long ago, but there is no reason to think other stories were twisted along the way. And indigenous stories are hardly equivalent to Western fairy tales.
Ever play ring-around-the-rosy? Know what it means?
Even when stories are transmitted just orally, there are practically always clues that allow you to identify the age of key components. Stories change considerably through oral transmission (that people who don't know how to write remember long stories more accurately is a myth), and once you have two or more versions of a story, there is a bit of material to work with. And it's not so much about conciously twisting stories. It's just that as stories aren't as fixed in oral cultures, they almost inevitably incorporate recent events.
Sorry, have you spent any time around illiterate people? Their memories are prodigious. You are still echoing the talking points of so-called civilization, which is so clever it is in imminent collapse.
Oops! I put my best explanation down below. Since no one ever witnessed The Big Bang, I’d call it a materialist Creation Story. Mathematics is an invention, not a “discovery” like the believers in materialism say, and tend to get visibly excited when they say it! Coming every day from a place that says, “we humans haven’t got this reality all figured out yet” is very different than coming from an attitude of “we’ve got this all figured out and only need to fill in some details.” I think those who are real scientists are coming from this first mindset, and not the latter.
Thanks for "Gish Gallop" didn't know what it meant. It's easy to see why most folk will never engage with this stuff. It's too confusing and therein lies it's cunning. Downloaded the Where's Wally pic to use later. This really is a repeat of history. I've always wondered what makes comfortable people consider themselves good and just. What's the saying, "We're only three meals way from chaos" or something? I don't know you but I am worried about you. I'm getting preoccupied with this. I want you to take some time and recalibrate. No one person can take all of this on every day, it's too much. Self care is the imperative. I am on anxiety meds and it doesn't really stop it, just makes you notice a slightly different yet persistent feeling. Ribcage filled with flurried birds. I truly salute you for your generosity and integrity. I hope you requite this with yo' sweet self!
I've had a chance to read the letters now the children are at school, and I'm quite impressed with both participants, for different reasons. They have both maintained a polite stance (though Rabinowitz does wander off into "some people have told me I'm a misogynist and made me feel unsafe!" so as to try (unsuccessfully) to gain the moral high ground), and kept the discussion in terms that most people can understand.
However, there is only one sceptic/skeptic in the debate, and that is Lewis. He is, quite correctly, starting from the basic proposition of "what is gender", and asking for working definitions so that harms and benefits can be identified and appropriate responses to both can be formulated. Rabinowitz utter fails to grasp this, and his definition of "well, it's all subjective, innit?" underlines the whole problem. He fails to see that no policy can take into account potentially 65 million different definitions in the UK alone. He also fails to see that what he is describing is personality, not gender. Ultimately, he shows that, just like a theologist being asked to critically evaluate the concept of the Trinity, he is starting from a position inside the belief system, and so his sc/kepticism is constrained.
Overall, these two men have illustrated the difference between being gender critical and gender accepting - we are asking the meta questions, they are avoiding them.
I've had a quick scroll through some of the other discussions on there - this one between Abigail Shrier and Heather Heying is interesting: https://letter.wiki/conversation/893
Is this the same Andy Lewis of The Quackometer website? He might be, because a linked article (see below) by author of the same name refers to the capture of the UK's The Skeptic journal.
I recommend the article for its helpful distinction between discussing the ontology of sex (what is a sex) and the epistemology of sex (how do we know whether an individual is a male or female). TRA arguments almost always use epistemological arguments to confuse discussions about the reality of biological sex in humans. That is, using challenges like, how do you know this individual in the ladies' restroom isn’t female? are you going to look in their pants?
The author also notes that the Endocrine Society issued a position paper stating that sex is real, and binary, but that paper was way over my head. Just noting the citation for any biologists/scientists in the comments section here.
Off to finish the entire exchange of letters. Great entry this morning, and thanks for it.
Just realised that Aaron R is the bloke who was patronising Emma Hilton about “gender identity”, telling her that of course she has one, even if it’s subjective and she’s only saying she hasn’t because she hasn’t explored it sufficiently, and when being asked to define it, trying to pull a “God of the gaps” intelligent-design argument by saying “well it’s very complex and any definition is only a part of it...” stunt.
We used to say there's two types of skeptic in this world, those who believe in bigfoot and those who don't. Guess there was less of a gap than we thought...
The next step is to confront the psychiatric profession (RC of Psychiatrists, The Lancet Psychiatry and others) with their failings, as follows:
Derogation of their duty (1) define forms of dangerous insanity and (2) to protect the public from insane patients. GD carried to final dissociation is dangerous both to the patient and to wider society for the reasons which we now see.
We start with the creation of "gender identity" ideology by Dr John Money, Mr Alfred Kinsey and Mr Harry Benjamin. We move on to the fierce internal battles in US psychiatry between the realists (later labelled "reactionaries") like Dr Paul McHugh who tried "gender affirming" psychiatric care at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and decided on the basis of the results that they could not treat GD effectively; similar battles in UK psychiatry; how those with a weak power of critical analysis cannot see that belief in "gender" and possibility of "separation of mind from body" result in insanity. Then the increasing fascination of medical researchers with (1) surgical techniques and better anaesthetics (2) control of endocrine system (in particular balance of sex hormones) and (3) triage by psychiatrists - assessment by multi-displinary teams. These medical factors combined with uncritical media interest has fanned the flames of insanity.
This is a giant medical experiment with the mental health of world's population, and especially eggregious with young people who are not sufficiently mature to judge any of this. They should NOT be exposed to any discussion of profound metabolic and surgical changes. This age group must be safeguarded from any discussion which unhinges their minds.
The current law in UK provides only a small degree of protection by (1) gatekeeping by specialist psychiatrists and (2) requirement for 2 years "living in role" to ensure as far as possible that the decision is "final". And STILL mistakes are made and always will be made. A deeply troubled mental patient really is not the best judge of what is in his/her best interests. And it is not in the interests of socialised medicine, like the UK's NHS, to manufacture life-long iatrogenic illness.
We need a completely different psychiatric approach: finding the causes of a belief which runs contrary to all the experiences of society since the dawn of man and to scientific knowledge of biology and science.
Over to the psychiatrists and psychotherapists to do some basic research into the causes of GD.
Please keep supporting women's rights and critical feminism as males (not transwomen, you should stay silent, because be thankful that women are a caring sex so we do not object to some males wearing a dress while shopping!)
Well, I think it is important that more trans women spoke up. Trans ideology has such an impact because TRAs make the world believe that they represent all trans people and that the interests of all trans people are identical.
Women have been speaking up for years - literally years. Most men have, until recently, responded with variations of "not my problem, doesn't affect me". About a year ago I saw a comment on a Times piece on trans idology vs women's right, from a man, saying "where are the feminists? They need to speak up". When did the Hamsptead Women's Pond get opened up to men? I started speaking up then with the Man Friday movement, but I was already late to the party!
I am moving further and further away from the notion that it is important for "trans" whatever to speak up. I think it can easily become another case of men's "speaking up" being more important than what women have to say. As far as I'm concerned, I find these men very creepy no matter their point of view. They are fetishists pure and simple and need to learn to keep their fetishes to themselves.
Yes. It's literally Men's Rights Activism on steroids. End of story. Any "nuance" claimed by nominally "GC" men about their male trans boyfriends is simply laughable.
To any sane person trans ideology is basically one elephant in the room after another. One of them is that there is a group of aggressive self appointed representatives. No one knows who legitimized them to speak, no one knows who they really represent etc. etc. etc. Other trans people are the group who can call out this elephant in the room the most credibly and the most effectively.
NO. If you believe that, then you believe that mentally diseased people, most often men, are more effective at challenging these beliefs than people, most of whom are women, who are sane and grounded. In other words, men can speak more credibly than women. I totally reject that notion.
Brilliantly expressed by Andy. Well done.👍 Hard to believe SCEPTICS are falling for this unscientific drivel. Aren't they supposed to disbelieve everything unless they see actual EVIDENCE to support it . Isn't that what being sceptical is supposed to mean ?? Looks like they'll need to redefine that as well So completely stupid and bizarre !!👎👎
That Aaron starts off with the belief that trans women are women, while unable to define women, reveals the lack of skepticism. Also holy batman isolated demands for rigor in regards to the standards he holds to the littman study while providing no studies, no less explaining how they meet his rigorous demands for truth.
So. Aaron's arguments for why “gender” should not be exposed to skeptical interrogation are these:
1. Just as “sexuality” is a really, really, really vague concept, so too is “gender identity,” therefore if we can legislate based on sexuality (no discrimination allowed against gays & lesbians), then we can also legislate based on gender identity. (Me: what.)
2. There is a moral panic (meaning, much ado about nothing) around the diagnosis & treatment of gender dysphoria. Extraordinarily increased referrals for GD are down to social acceptance, and funding for treatment, not social contagion. Littmans's ROGD hypothesis has been soundly debunked. (Me: No, societal backlash occurred from an ideological standpoint, about Littman's study of the numbers and her hypothesis. Study is ongoing. Meanwhile, GD clinics in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland have in the past year narrowed use of puberty blockers.)
3. “Woman” means adult human female, including trans women. Aaron: “Whether someone counts as a woman ultimately comes down to how they understand themselves, because there are no other essential features that determine who is and is not a woman. … [T]here is no other feature of them that can outweigh their genuine understanding of their identity as a woman.” (Me: Words fail.)
Aaron sounds like he needs to return to middle-school (or earlier) biology. He's apparently never had sex and never looked at a naked human. Words fail, indeed.
Speaking as a dyed in the wool sceptic or skeptic (I suppose both is correct in English): I still find it confusing that of all people American sceptics have been incapable of seeing right through the pseudo- and antiscience of gender ideology and its religious properties. Sceptics by definition try to apply critical and scientific thinking to social issues of any sort. This is what makes sceptics sceptics. In fact, this is why I have been opposing trans ideology ever since I became aware that it wasn't just something on the lunatic fringe but slowly infiltratring every area of policy making, academic education and pre-political spaces. I honestly don't get why my organized US counterparts require people to abandon all critical and scientific thinking in this regard. Now, I understand why people may fall for this ideology when they don't have a lot of experience with lobbies, esoterics and the like. Trans ideology uses ALL manipulative techniques used by esoterics, pseudomedicine and religious fundamentalists to convince an unsuspecting public. This ranges from the arbitrary redefinition of established and scientific terms, the coining of new scientific sounding terms, cherry picking data and results, appeal to emotion and authority to outright falsehoods. Trans ideology employs them to an extent I have not observed anywhere else. And believe me, I have seen quite a bit. How anyone with any experience in debunking fairy tales can not see that is beyond me. I rather suspect that organized US sceptics have made the deliberate choice to ignore the plentiful evidence. Conciously or not, they are aware of this - which explains why they are so much on the offense on this topic. Shouting out their new creed is the only way to silence their manifest doubts about it. If it didn't have much wider political and social implications this would be just tragic. As it does, it's a disgrace and a danger.
Indeed, the TRA arguments are often like logical fallacy bingo. They're so laced with holes I could use them as a doily. My belief is that people don't see it for many reasons - they have something in it for them (usually money); they don't know enough but stick to a "it's nice to be nice" rhetoric because they're sheeple; they're scared of the consequences personally. The way this is going, many more folk are going to have to choose a hill to die on before this is over though.
It isn't just logical fallacy, although they certainly employ that a lot.
“Trans ideology uses ALL manipulative techniques used by esoterics, pseudomedicine and religious fundamentalists to convince an unsuspecting public. This ranges from the arbitrary redefinition of established and scientific terms, the coining of new scientific sounding terms, cherry picking data and results, appeal to emotion and authority to outright falsehoods.”
Excellent points, Chris. This passage should be a pull quote for your post. For the gullible public of progressive lefties in blue US states, the issue of trans rights/TWAW is simply the next stop in the arc-thingie that bends towards whatsit. (Thx Graham.) For this crowd, the only mental work required is mastering new lingo, and a new set of arguments and counter-arguments. Skeptical gender-critical questioning simply looks like bigotry to them.
As well, progressive trans activists are vastly influential in blue state & national politics (also corporate, media, and academia nationwide). So your suspicion that skeptics have deliberately chosen to ignore the plentiful evidence is probably correct. Like ordinary people, skeptics fear losing jobs, influence, funding. They don’t want to lose their friends, or be disowned by their children.
But US politicians are getting pushback. Lawsuits have been filed challenging transfer of male felons into women's prisons. Democrats lost the governorship of Virginia, partially as a result of trans ideology in school districts. The story of Penn swimmer Lia Thomas broke. Even Caitlyn Jenner has stated opposition to bio males competing against girls and women (as a true athlete would). So while skeptics haven’t yet saddled up, ordinary US voters strongly resist trans ideology. Fingers crossed.
“I honestly don't get why my organized US counterparts require people to abandon all critical and scientific thinking..” Follow the money, maybe? In order to land $$ grant funding for their proposals, research scientists may have to exhibit fealty to certain non scientific policy positions.
As well, in a cutthroat scientific environment, competitors may have an incentive to “out” scientists who are truly skeptical of funders' or institutions' required positions on sex/gender. By tanking the grant proposals of actually skeptical scientists, competitors increase their own chances of getting funding?
Not sure of this as a fact, but in questioning why scientists are so supine on what seems so obvious to GC us, I have to assume factors in the research-funding enterprise that we're not aware of. And if so, it’s outrageous. Institutions' and funders' boards of directors must be challenged, if this is true.
I did notice that Finn Mackay, a lecturer at University of the West if England, -who I think likes to be referred to as "they" and has recently published a book entitled 'Female Masculinities and the Gender Wars' , - has a successful track record in receiving grants from The ESRC (UK Research Council).
It is not as simple as that. It more has to do with how scientific results are being published. Now, that certainly has a lot, if not everything, to do with capitalist markets/publishing industries but the connection isn't as straightforward as you may think. Actually, there aren't many papers out there that seem to support the cause of trans ideology. None of them, to my knowledge, really stands up to scientific scrutiny - at least not inasmuch as they are supposed to say what TRAs say they say. The issue is rather that the explosion of cases now affects very different groups of people and meaningful research in that area has become a lot more difficult. Science can not switch off the societal environment in which it is supposed to be conducted. Just finding enough gender dysphoric teenagers to allow you to conduct a long term blinded study will be next to impossible. You'd have a serious problem with the control group. There is so much pressure on parents and teenagers to take hormone blockers that very few of them will consent to either not get them at all or "risk" getting a placebo. (Although I'm not sure if a placebo would even work in this case.) And then you couldn't rule out that some of the patients get their hands on puberty blockers behind your back. The other thing is that longitudinal studies with that group are very difficult. There is little incentive for teenagers to further participate in a study once they have come of age. Most likely they'd be referred to other doctors or clinics and you'd get out of touch with them - and why would they want to reach out to you again? That's particulary true if they find out that "transitioning" didn't solve their problems. I mean, essentially this would mean that you'd have to go back to the scientists from the study who you've told all these years that you were "trans" and tell them: "Well, guess what, I've been wrong". You are not likely to do that when you're 19 or 21. You might do that when you're 35. That's why for now the only people who have any data on gender dysphoric youths are the ones that have a stake in medicalizing them.
I'm more surprised that the British sceptic community seems to have mostly fallen for it. American scepticism has been tiptoeing around established/mainstream religion for decades because apparently they don't make testable claims (how do you test a belief in the resurrection). US sceptics tend to go after fringe beliefs like bigfoot, dowsing, homeopathy etc that can more easily be tested in a lab. The US is such a religious/spiritual country that going full Atheist would've alienated too many people for the community to be viable. From that angle US sceptics rolling over for transgenderism doesn't seem so surprising if you see it as a new faith with beliefs so nebulous that its claims are basically untestable.
Staying neutral about religion and embracing a specific one are two very different things. I'm somewhat active in the Austrian sceptic community. We also tend not to discuss established religion. I support this stance, in spite of my also being a secular activist (at least sometimes). You inevitably get yourself into a terrible mess once you start going down that road and alienate members and symathizers who may be vaguely religious. Besides, in one form or another religion will quite often play into your activities anyways, as it is quite often a basis - or claimed to be a basis - of whatever superstition you are looking into. Now, so far Austrian sceptics have not dealt with trans ideology and certainly not embraced it. Given current developments, I hope this stays this way - although the voice of sceptics is desparately needed. The chance that the organized part would roll over is just too great at the moment and that would cause a lot of harm.
"Now, so far Austrian sceptics have not dealt with trans ideology and certainly not embraced it. Given current developments, I hope this stays this way - although the voice of sceptics is desparately needed."
What's the point of skeptic orgs if they just sit on the sidelines of topics that they really should have opinions on? There's no point in talking the talk if you won't walk the walk when the time comes.
This says more about how powerful this ideology has become than it says about sceptic orgs.
Or how selective many peoples skepticism really is...
You got it! When I first discovered fundamentalist atheists, I was like What the fuck?!?!? The first thing one should be skeptical about is any widespread belief, especially when it's being bankrolled by the scum of society (billionaires).
I’ve been confused for some time by the way numerous skeptics just went all-in to trans ideology. I used to listen to a good number of skeptical podcasts, until they all started parroting the TWAW mantra without any discussion. I still listen to a couple that mostly discuss other topics, but even they mention it more and more.
“Oh No Ross and Carrie” mainly discuss other things, with occasional kowtowing to TWAW, but recently played an interview that Ross did at a skeptic conference. It was interesting that the last question was along the lines of “If you were going to fall for a scam or illogical belief, what would it be?”, and he said it would be something that was supposed to help people or the environment, and then suggested maybe some scam to do with Climate Change. I, of course, was mentally shouting Trans Ideology! Actually think about it! You want to help people who are suffering, so have switched off your skeptical thought processes!
There is also a UK Skeptical podcast that only mentions any negative opinions about trans ideology in relation to weirdo conspiracy theorists. But then one of the hosts went on a rant about how his partner had trouble getting a huge breast enhancement (that she’d always wanted and would make her happy apparently) because the very good plastic surgeon they spoke to refused to do it, as it was not suitable for her, in his professional opinion. So they found another one who would do it! This is a podcast that has numerous discussions about homeopathy, and preventing the NHS paying for it as there is no proof it actually works, and also many episodes discussing the fallacy of the placebo effect, and scams for treating cancer, and so on. But they refuse to look at the whole Trans scam! Utterly insane.
Oh wow, what brave souls, tackling homeopathy. Which no one is shoving down their throats. I love the beliefs these people supposedly tackle, seemingly beliefs that don't harm anyone, but I'll bet they believe in capitalism and the medical-industrial complex (that's where you get giant breasts which may very well cause lifelong medical problems) and democracy and piles of other crap.
Ah well, homeopathy is shoved down many people's throats. Pharmacies may suggest it to people who never asked for it and have no idea what it is. Happened to a friend of mine who wanted to buy medication for his dog. He didn't even know how to pronounce homeopathy. He was talked into buying some globuli. Rather predictably, his dog needed surgery because her condition was left untreated. Effective medication would probably have done the job. That's not an isolated case. That being said: The widespread acceptance of pseudomedicine and how it is being pushed by quite a few groups is one of the pillars socially accepted science denial rests on. Trans ideology is just a very extreme form of this science denial. And: You underestimate the pressure pseudomedicine lobbies can exert. They pull everything from frivolous lawsuits to silence critics to not so subtle smear campaigns - that are quite effective. A lot of the strategies trans ideology employs have been successfully tested by pseudomedicine lobbies.
I use homeopathic formulas, the first of which was used by my foster daughter's soccer coach to treat injuries, Arnica montana. Highly effective for pain, muscle strain, bruising, etc, particularly for those of us who indulged in sports.
Your friend needed to take his dog to a veterinarian to find out what was wrong. You don't take something or give it to your pet or child because someone told you to do so.
Pseudomedicine lobbies? That's called Big Pharma here and they are killing the public with their desire -- as stated by a former pharma rep -- to have everyone of all ages taking 8 to 10 of their poisons a day. I'm not saying there aren't effective medications, but they need to be taken carefully and with a great deal of thought. The only thing I take daily is my thyroid replacement and I don't take what Big Pharma pushes; I take natural desiccated thyroid which makes it possible for me to walk and talk and think. I think you should visit Stop the Thyroid Madness and check out what thyroid patients have to say about doctors.
Are you familiar with the four stages of spiritual growth as outlined by M Scott Peck? (He simplified a longer list.) 1) Chaos; 2) orthodoxy; 3) skepticism; 4) mysticism. Your "skeptical" colleagues are obviously still stuck in orthodoxy, which at the moment declares that trans is real and the province of the most marginalized people ever. It's interesting to watch people not actually mature, but fall back into chaos or orthodoxy when it's too much trouble to be SKEPTICAL.
Thank you. This is interesting to read. Is it because they don't give a shiny shit about women, girls and children in general?
If life were only as simple as you make it out to be.
I am saying what I see. Those who argue as he does, do not give a shiny shit about women and girls. This ideology only got this far, because the foundational belief is that woman and girls are not fully human, and only represent the lack of something male; a stereotype. How that belief was enacted in policy primarily affects women and girls. Only later has it been challenged on other grounds, such as Freedom of Speech, when people started noticing that women were being suppressed.
You will not find transmen (women who identify as men) in their arguments because they are irrelevant to them. They don't even bother to offer up dodgy arguments as to why transmen are men because they don't even care to pretend to believe it. Meanwhile, the harms of transitioning come disproprotionately to girls and young women - the effects of testosterone on the female body are awful.
I don't know whether you are male or female, but I am so utterly sick of philosophical arguments about what a woman is. Especially when they are conducted by men.
I am not discounting other factors in play, but fundamentally this is a war on women.
This is a bit of a vent. No disrespect to you personally. As I say, you have interesting things to say.
Don't worry, I don't take this as a personal attack. It's just that I am reluctant to make any assumptions as to what other people think. People are very good at discovering patterns where there are none and they are very good at convincing themselves that whatever it is they do or think is actually a good thing. I agree with you that this is overall a war on women. Most of the participants have simply not understood this and have been lead to believe or lead themselves to believe that they are actually fighting for women and children. Once down that road they just block out any evidence to the contrary. It's not the first time something like this happens. We just live in an environment that greatly encourages such phenomenons.
I have not noticed that in general so-called skeptics and atheists give any more of a shit about women and girls than the majority of men do.
Yes. It's everywhere, including in men who claim superior thinking skills. Including left wing men.
Every time I've come in contact with a man with "superior thinking skills," it turns out he's barely got a room temperature IQ. We had a legislator in Maine who bragged about his "man brain"; someone asked me if he sat on it and I said no, it's in his little head and he's confused about which head is which.
Let's all start referring to affirmation as medical sex denial.
Good idea 👍👍👍
I'm going to! 😁😁😁
Sceptics believe in gender ideology??? What the actual feck?!! In that case they're no longer hard-minded Sceptics, then, but simple-minded Susceptibles.
As a dyed in the wool sceptic I couldn't agree more. It's a disgrace of and attack at everything the sceptic movement has achieved over the past decades.
I commented above but US sceptic organisations have something of a hands off approach regarding organised religion and spiritualism in general. They'll go after creationism but not biblical miracles like feeding the 5,000 or the resurrection. If they can't test a hypothesis in the here and now they often just leave it alone. Gender Identity isn't testable in any meaningful way so it's not considered to be something that would get a person cast out of the ingroup like believing in Bigfoot or homeopathy...
Oh, trans ideology can be tested to a considerable extent. Many of its claims are of a nature we never accept as a basis for anything other than the people making the claims believe in them. About one in ten adults for instance will believe that they have been visited by a recently deceased loved one in the course of their lives in the US. That belief is an indisputable fact - as belief. No sceptic association would consider this to be an indication that ghosts actually exist. You could never set up designs that would rule out those ghosts entirely, simply because you couldn't ethically nor practically all people who recently lost a love to an extent that would. But as there are many more plausible explanations for these apparitions than ghosts and as ghosts would require an extraordinary amount of evidence, you can dimiss the idea as long as no one ever turns up with any convincing evidence to the contrary. Trans ideology is not so much different in this respect.
It gets me how many people who identify as atheists and/or skeptics refuse to consider the possibility that trans people are simply deluded in the same way that they consider religious people to be deluded. They can 'agree to disagree' with religious people without denouncing them but if a religious person is offended by their lack of belief or their belief that religiosity is fundamentally a delusion then the attitude is frequently "so what?" rather than "how can I make you feel more valid?". But Trans people need to be believed and accommodated without question.
Although just one caveat: Transpeople seem to suffer from genuine and often severe mental health issues. Religious people mainly do not. So, on an individual level, these things should be addressed differently because they are (even though there is strong connection). On a societal level I see no fundamental difference.
Hopefully you're right, but even people without mental health issues can behave in insane ways in the right situations. Are suicide bombers mentally ill? What about people who bomb abortion clinics? Or someone who takes part in ethnic cleansing? We might reach a point in the next few years where the average trans person is no more mentally ill than the average Christian...
I will agree with the "mainly do not," but when you live in a country (the U.S.) where a sizable portion of the population believes in the rapture I think you can say that a sizable portion of the population has severe mental health issues.
Religious beliefs are ultimately a sign of gullibility and of the shortcomings of the human brain. The tendency to religious beliefs seems to be a direct result of our neurological anatomy. Whether or not we hold religious beliefs is then mainly due to socialisation. You don't need mental health to explain that. Although religious beliefs are an excellent basis for developping severe mental health issues.
I'm not saying I personally disagree with you there.
Except that belief in spirits is universal to all cultures. That’s very different! I think this fact and looking at how the Sceptics aren’t being scientific at all here shows the vulnerability in so-called scientific organizations. They’re inhabited by people, not robots, and it comes down to the egos of primarily men in a patriarchal society. I’ve just come to see how materialism as a belief system steers so much of the activity, not altruistic “scientific” ones. Thanks for posting. So many intelligent, engaging people that comment on Glinner’s Substack! Definitely thinkers.
Yes! I am reading Robin Wall Zimmerer's Braiding Sweetgrass; she is both indigenous and a scientist. She writes of the indigenous belief that trees talk to one another and how "scientists" pooh-poohed that because their minds could not move beyond animal communication. And of course now we know that trees do talk to one another, both through the wind and the fungi that provide them with minerals in exchange for carbohydrates. Looking forward to reading The Hidden Life of Trees.
I don’t think there’s been much “science” occurring in the USA since corporate industry became so profitable with their petroleum products around WWII. Dr. Vandana Shiva is trained I believe in Nuclear Physics but has spent her efforts on biological matters, such as fighting for seed sovereignty on behalf of agriculturists. She so inspires me, and is clearly a person of faith as well. Now “scientists” are inventing things like dark matter to attempt to bring their theories in line with recent observations, while downplaying the fact that their theories did not predict what is now being seen with advanced telescopic instruments! Cosmology has a crisis going on, with an exponential rise of the filing of academic papers in 2019. Gerda Lerner stated that patriarchy began by historical process and so can be ended the same way. I’m up for it! I’m so excited to be alive, lately, and sometimes a pop song captures it succinctly. “Right here, right now/ There is no other place I’d rather be/ Right here, right now/ Watching the world wake up from history.” - Jesus Jones 🤪
Why aren't Sceptics be scientific in this regard? That there is a belief in spirits and ghosts in all societies has been documented, mainly using materialist methods, by the way. I.e. one observes and describes the claims of a given society in this regard without making the assumption that these claims prove the actual existence of these supernatural entities. Being scientific when it comes to these matters also means to recognize the limitations of scientific research. It will probably never be possible to disprove the existence of ghosts and spirits. But it will also probably - and to a higher degree - never be possible to prove their existence, either. Given everything else we know about spirits and ghosts, we can safely dismiss them as relevant in any scientific sense. (Note: The belief in them remains a relevant issue.) But let's get back to trans ideology in this context. This is not as different as it may appear. We can demonstrate that the beliefs in spirits and ghosts depend on the material and social conditions of a society. How many people believe they ever saw or heard one is very different between societies and changes considerably within any given society over time. This also goes for which ghosts and spirits people believe there are about and claim to see. It can also be demonstrated that how people deal with apparitions that can be interpreted as ghosts or spirits changes drastically over time - meaning that people are a lot more likely to secondguess their own observations if they live in a society where the belief in supernatural entities is less present than in others. As banal as this may seem - it is exactly the same thing we see with trans ideology. And let's let aside the fact that trans ideology ultimately rests on the idea of a very ghostlike "true inner self" and this is closely connected to historical beliefs in a spirit world - even then we can show that the belief in trans ideology directly correlates to the possibilities of modern medicine and ideological currents in Western societies. Until someone can demonstrate that transsexualism is innate, i.e. that people are actually "born in the wrong body", the safest assumption is that this is just another form of belief in supernatural entities, produced by the society it emanates from.
🤣 It’s not a supernatural belief. It’s narcissism!
The belief you are born with the desire to wear dresses and highheels ultimately is a belief in a supernatural substance or entity that entered you before birth. Or in other words: It is the belief that there is an Inner and True Self that is somehow there and somehow more true than your Outer Self. This is, incidentally, a common motif in American religiosity and has deeply shaped New Age Esoterics.
In real Science with a capital “S,” absence of evidence doesn’t equal evidence of absence. I survived evangelical abuse in childhood, never believed in any gods or spirits, and never would I get my ideas about physical reality solely from books of any kind. However, from my analysis of how “civilized” institutions public and private operate, I wouldn’t look to them as being anything other than than the biased organizations that they are. They don’t exist for altruistic purposes, anyway. Materialism is also a belief system, and The Big Bang is just a theory. An outdated one, at that, but decidedly better than The Jesus Story, IMHO. To me, the whole techno-medicine complex operates as a business first and foremost, and most often I’m left wondering where the heck the science is? True, there are many silly, superstitious religious beliefs, but the medical industry has plenty of them too, like psychosurgery and blaming mothers for causing their child’s autism, etc., etc., etc. in a litany of abuse. There’s precious little science in it, and far more control. If I believed for one minute that I’m just a bag of chemicals and my consciousness is just an illusory byproduct of the goo in my cranium, why should I bother to endure all this social insanity, as I’m a person with low social status? I choose to live in the mystery of “I don’t know” and if more medical practitioners did as well, most likely they wouldn’t harm so many people. The application of technology doesn’t equal science. It’s business that produces profit and social status for those who practice it. Check out the current crisis in Cosmology for more information, as I’m not formally educated past the eighth grade, but I assure you, it’s paradigm shattering. Time for a new model!
Part II: In order for materialism to be a religion, it should meet at least some criteria. Unlike religions, materialism does not have a set of elaborated doctrins. Unlike religions, it does not require anyone to adhere to a strict set of behaviors. Unlike religions, it can not bring forth a clerical calls on its own. Unlike religions, it does not appeal to things inherently unknowable and does not require anyone to believe in things inherently unknowable. Unlike religions it does not per se claim to be morally superior. In fact, morals are of secondary concern to materialism. Materialism is foremost a tool to acquire and expand knowledge in the most rational way we know. It can, of course, be applied to fields other than science and the scientific process. It frequently is, in fact. In these cases it is always embedded in a set of processes and does not dictate fixed outcomes. Liberalism and socialism are the two political directions that have competed against each other for most of the past 150 years or so. Both are deeply rooted in materialism. Both have yielded very different outcomes - when compared to each other as well as within each respective system. If materialism were a religion as you claim this would most likely not be the case.
What do the two of you mean by materialism? I believe in material reality as I'm guessing both of you do. I believe in what someone's senses can tell them if their senses are not colored by a diseased brain. But I think there are many things we cannot see or hear or document -- at least at present -- that may exist without our tiny selves being able to detect them. Life is far more subtle and complex and thrilling than Western reductionist science often tells us. Look at our view of animals, incredibly limited and stupid until recently. We were so enamoured of ourselves -- a key feature of patriarchal culture -- we forgot we are only a small part of a beautiful world, which we are now destroying in our arrogance.
“Western reductionist science” is precisely what I mean. I know the term liberal can sure mean different things in different contexts, and I’m mostly self-taught after eighth grade, so I lack the vocabulary that comes more from a formal education to debate ideas with. It’s probably my womanly intuition that niggles at me. To me, patriarchy is worship of the might-makes-right principle. That’s okay for other animals, but the human animal with reason? Nothing at all is rational about patriarchy. It’s just the group narcissism of males. I see civilized people as the most cut off from the fullness of physical reality in a way that natural human groups aren’t. Surely this way of existence is diminishing us, and has filled the ocean with plastic? I don’t see anything at all rational about it, and when I started seeing it as a response to human (mainly male) fear of Nature’s processes, that’s when it started making sense to me! 🎵”…Watching the world wake up from HIStory!” 🎶 Yeah, probably just a silly woman’s intuition. 😉
Have they really yielded very different outcomes? Always the outcome of massive inequality. I’d like to be allowed to leave it, but always there’s a dominator to say no. How many of us experience it more as a prison when a few actually collect the most to themselves for their own crazy control obsessions? Mostly this thing you’re calling science seems like mental masturbation to me. I’ve lost respect for it, as those who consider themselves to be the authorities of it have just made too many errors. Plastic garbage patch in the ocean? Technology (or tool-making) brought science which brought plastic? Something is deeply flawed about it, and a kind of vitality is missing. Denying anything but physical matter exists is a statement of belief. Again, I don’t have the language, but I assure you that I don’t misunderstand the scientific process like you think I do. Just don’t admire it like I used to and can see its failings more than others who are more in tune with this biologically demented way of living. Exploring consciousness is probably what I do best, so I’ll stick to that instead of commenting on topics I’m unable to debate due to the extrajudicial punishment cancelling my education, and hence producing social death. I’d rather live amongst humane people than in the prison sewer built by science and civilized people. Paradigm shift ahead!
I think it is fair to say that your understanding of science and the scientific method seems a bit incomplete. Science is by definition practised materialism - regardless of the beliefs individual scientists may hold. This means that hypothesis are formed and experiments are conducted explicitely without assuming that supernatural powers or entities influence the observable world or have any influence on the outcome. Science and the scientific method are also by definition not just altruistic affairs - although broadening our understanding of the world is certainly altruistic in a wider sense. That science and the scientific method are sometimes, and in some areas quite often, used, abused and misused for other purposes does not speak against science itself. In human history everything humans do has been corrupted and used by some against the rest. Agriculture for instance was also instrumental in establishing power structures, withholding food was and is used as a means of punishment or to force the will of one group on another. Growing food has been used to enrich people and we can assume that the establishment of agriculture correlated with the idea of private property. Should we then assume agriculture to be a bad thing? And yes, science has walked down many blind alleys in the past. Some of these aberrations have harmed countless people. It will happen in the future, too. Science is always the sum of the best knowledge available at the time. Any serious scientist will tell you that, by the way. Science is the process of and the wish to continously expand our knowledge the best way we know. Materialism is a key instrument in that.
Well, I have little respect left for materialism, perhaps. It has become its own religion with its own priesthoods. Science is an outgrowth of technology, not the other way around. Patriarchy was invented in historical times, and the processes which led to agriculture and civilization are not at all understood by those who claim authority over science and disciplines. In the abstract, it sounds great, but the practice suffers from all the flaws of male domination. My understanding of what is called civilization looks like something more of a trauma response to nature’s processes than any inherent stroke of brilliance that’s promoting evolution or some lofty abstract concept like that. Why assume agriculture is “good?” It destroys soil as well as human health and fosters this continuing codependent saga of male domination. I’m not getting this attitude from you specifically, but so often if I question any of these “scientific” authorities the attitude I get clearly is that the viewpoint I hold isn’t valid, and I should be grateful for being allowed to exist in their society. That’s as creepy a claim to ownership as any organized religion, and upon as flimsy a basis. Never found too much value in psychology as I’m a survivor of abuse in childhood by multiple practitioners in that industry, but what I’ve learned in recent years about narcissism (and personality disorders) seems accurate enough to explain for me why our institutions are so screwy and these social contagions repeat! Well, I’ll just leave it at that. Since I’ve survived what I have, I think I’ll stick to living in the mystery of it all and be glad I’m one of those fighting madness instead of producing it. Nothing at all wrong with my mind, or demanding higher quality of life, even though others in positions of authority are so deeply defective that I’ve lost respect for them and don’t serve up to them the obeisance that they think they deserve. Check into the crisis in cosmology if you dare. Paradigm shift ahead!
Why is agriculture good for instance? Because it feeds us. Without it, billions of people would die. Or would have never existed. Our entire culture rests on it. You are free, of course, to consider this a bad outcome and to prefer for mankind to exist in maybe a few million individuals worldwide, living on barely a subsistence base. You'll just have to live with most people considering that a bit extreme. Why is science good? It has doubled our life spans within a very short period of time, for instance. It enables us to communicate with each other over vast distances. It has done much to much to better the position of many marginalized groups - women most of all - in our society. We can discuss what the flaws and dark sides are and why they are there any whether or not we should consider them more in our overall judgements. To chuck out these things entirely seems a bit unfounded for me.
So, it’s acceptable for a Sceptic to believe in gender ideology?
For some of them apparently yes. Much to their shame, I may add.
Wow. Isn’t that amazing? We can’t even get scepticism from the Sceptics on this one? 🤣
Very much looks like it.
Is everyone such a literalist? Feeding the 5,000 and the resurrection are only taken literally by people who think the world was created 6,000 years ago. I find literalism to be extremely limited and mentally damaging. And who cares if someone thinks Sasquatch actually exists? (There's an indigenous version here in Maine; who am I to tell people who have lived here for thousands of years what they saw or didn't see? Indigenous stories often have far more truth in them than Western reductionist so-called science, more accurately termed technology, which is not science.)
Quite often when you check indigenous cultures you'll find that many of the tales they tell now are not as old as people believe. This goes for many Western fairly tales and Western folklore as well. It's just that usually people don't attach any deeper meaning to those anymore.
Does Austria have indigenous cultures? I think not. Maine, U.S.A., has indigenous people; I respect their culture and was surprised to learn that there are people who do not even know they exist. You can't check how old a story is because they did not write things down, they passed them down through the generations. For example, when they went searching for one of those not-very-bright arctic explorers, the indigenous people told them stories that were quite accurate about the men. Yes, that wasn't very long ago, but there is no reason to think other stories were twisted along the way. And indigenous stories are hardly equivalent to Western fairy tales.
Ever play ring-around-the-rosy? Know what it means?
Even when stories are transmitted just orally, there are practically always clues that allow you to identify the age of key components. Stories change considerably through oral transmission (that people who don't know how to write remember long stories more accurately is a myth), and once you have two or more versions of a story, there is a bit of material to work with. And it's not so much about conciously twisting stories. It's just that as stories aren't as fixed in oral cultures, they almost inevitably incorporate recent events.
Sorry, have you spent any time around illiterate people? Their memories are prodigious. You are still echoing the talking points of so-called civilization, which is so clever it is in imminent collapse.
Materialism is its own religion, with associated orthodox priesthoods.
How is materialism a religion?
Oops! I put my best explanation down below. Since no one ever witnessed The Big Bang, I’d call it a materialist Creation Story. Mathematics is an invention, not a “discovery” like the believers in materialism say, and tend to get visibly excited when they say it! Coming every day from a place that says, “we humans haven’t got this reality all figured out yet” is very different than coming from an attitude of “we’ve got this all figured out and only need to fill in some details.” I think those who are real scientists are coming from this first mindset, and not the latter.
Thanks for "Gish Gallop" didn't know what it meant. It's easy to see why most folk will never engage with this stuff. It's too confusing and therein lies it's cunning. Downloaded the Where's Wally pic to use later. This really is a repeat of history. I've always wondered what makes comfortable people consider themselves good and just. What's the saying, "We're only three meals way from chaos" or something? I don't know you but I am worried about you. I'm getting preoccupied with this. I want you to take some time and recalibrate. No one person can take all of this on every day, it's too much. Self care is the imperative. I am on anxiety meds and it doesn't really stop it, just makes you notice a slightly different yet persistent feeling. Ribcage filled with flurried birds. I truly salute you for your generosity and integrity. I hope you requite this with yo' sweet self!
I've had a chance to read the letters now the children are at school, and I'm quite impressed with both participants, for different reasons. They have both maintained a polite stance (though Rabinowitz does wander off into "some people have told me I'm a misogynist and made me feel unsafe!" so as to try (unsuccessfully) to gain the moral high ground), and kept the discussion in terms that most people can understand.
However, there is only one sceptic/skeptic in the debate, and that is Lewis. He is, quite correctly, starting from the basic proposition of "what is gender", and asking for working definitions so that harms and benefits can be identified and appropriate responses to both can be formulated. Rabinowitz utter fails to grasp this, and his definition of "well, it's all subjective, innit?" underlines the whole problem. He fails to see that no policy can take into account potentially 65 million different definitions in the UK alone. He also fails to see that what he is describing is personality, not gender. Ultimately, he shows that, just like a theologist being asked to critically evaluate the concept of the Trinity, he is starting from a position inside the belief system, and so his sc/kepticism is constrained.
Overall, these two men have illustrated the difference between being gender critical and gender accepting - we are asking the meta questions, they are avoiding them.
I've had a quick scroll through some of the other discussions on there - this one between Abigail Shrier and Heather Heying is interesting: https://letter.wiki/conversation/893
Thanks for pointing that out, very interesting.
Very good analysis from both of them.👏👏👏👏
I wish I'd thought of "medical sex denial" - great term that I'm stealing!
Those women are lovely.
Don't care much for the bloke in the back.
Did you spot him because his shoulders appear to be almost twice the width of the young women he's standing with, by any chance... ;0)
Heh!
It was actually the Adam's Apple.
Where's Willy
Wither Moley when we need you...
Deeply unsurprising from the skeptic/sceptic. Just another bloke who thinks women aren't full human beings, just the absence of something.
Is this the same Andy Lewis of The Quackometer website? He might be, because a linked article (see below) by author of the same name refers to the capture of the UK's The Skeptic journal.
I recommend the article for its helpful distinction between discussing the ontology of sex (what is a sex) and the epistemology of sex (how do we know whether an individual is a male or female). TRA arguments almost always use epistemological arguments to confuse discussions about the reality of biological sex in humans. That is, using challenges like, how do you know this individual in the ladies' restroom isn’t female? are you going to look in their pants?
https://www.quackometer.net/blog/2021/04/on-the-ontology-and-epistemology-of-sex.html
The author also notes that the Endocrine Society issued a position paper stating that sex is real, and binary, but that paper was way over my head. Just noting the citation for any biologists/scientists in the comments section here.
Off to finish the entire exchange of letters. Great entry this morning, and thanks for it.
Gee, I'm so dumb that if a giant dude with a beard and hands like hams is in the women's toilet, I would have no idea if it was a man or woman.
Thank you very much.
Just realised that Aaron R is the bloke who was patronising Emma Hilton about “gender identity”, telling her that of course she has one, even if it’s subjective and she’s only saying she hasn’t because she hasn’t explored it sufficiently, and when being asked to define it, trying to pull a “God of the gaps” intelligent-design argument by saying “well it’s very complex and any definition is only a part of it...” stunt.
That’s a skeptic?
Has the word changed meaning?
We used to say there's two types of skeptic in this world, those who believe in bigfoot and those who don't. Guess there was less of a gap than we thought...
The next step is to confront the psychiatric profession (RC of Psychiatrists, The Lancet Psychiatry and others) with their failings, as follows:
Derogation of their duty (1) define forms of dangerous insanity and (2) to protect the public from insane patients. GD carried to final dissociation is dangerous both to the patient and to wider society for the reasons which we now see.
We start with the creation of "gender identity" ideology by Dr John Money, Mr Alfred Kinsey and Mr Harry Benjamin. We move on to the fierce internal battles in US psychiatry between the realists (later labelled "reactionaries") like Dr Paul McHugh who tried "gender affirming" psychiatric care at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and decided on the basis of the results that they could not treat GD effectively; similar battles in UK psychiatry; how those with a weak power of critical analysis cannot see that belief in "gender" and possibility of "separation of mind from body" result in insanity. Then the increasing fascination of medical researchers with (1) surgical techniques and better anaesthetics (2) control of endocrine system (in particular balance of sex hormones) and (3) triage by psychiatrists - assessment by multi-displinary teams. These medical factors combined with uncritical media interest has fanned the flames of insanity.
This is a giant medical experiment with the mental health of world's population, and especially eggregious with young people who are not sufficiently mature to judge any of this. They should NOT be exposed to any discussion of profound metabolic and surgical changes. This age group must be safeguarded from any discussion which unhinges their minds.
The current law in UK provides only a small degree of protection by (1) gatekeeping by specialist psychiatrists and (2) requirement for 2 years "living in role" to ensure as far as possible that the decision is "final". And STILL mistakes are made and always will be made. A deeply troubled mental patient really is not the best judge of what is in his/her best interests. And it is not in the interests of socialised medicine, like the UK's NHS, to manufacture life-long iatrogenic illness.
We need a completely different psychiatric approach: finding the causes of a belief which runs contrary to all the experiences of society since the dawn of man and to scientific knowledge of biology and science.
Over to the psychiatrists and psychotherapists to do some basic research into the causes of GD.
End!
The letters provides useful evidence for the lunacy they keep denying is at the root of their religion.
Please keep supporting women's rights and critical feminism as males (not transwomen, you should stay silent, because be thankful that women are a caring sex so we do not object to some males wearing a dress while shopping!)
Well, I think it is important that more trans women spoke up. Trans ideology has such an impact because TRAs make the world believe that they represent all trans people and that the interests of all trans people are identical.
Women have been speaking up for years - literally years. Most men have, until recently, responded with variations of "not my problem, doesn't affect me". About a year ago I saw a comment on a Times piece on trans idology vs women's right, from a man, saying "where are the feminists? They need to speak up". When did the Hamsptead Women's Pond get opened up to men? I started speaking up then with the Man Friday movement, but I was already late to the party!
I am moving further and further away from the notion that it is important for "trans" whatever to speak up. I think it can easily become another case of men's "speaking up" being more important than what women have to say. As far as I'm concerned, I find these men very creepy no matter their point of view. They are fetishists pure and simple and need to learn to keep their fetishes to themselves.
Yes. It's literally Men's Rights Activism on steroids. End of story. Any "nuance" claimed by nominally "GC" men about their male trans boyfriends is simply laughable.
To any sane person trans ideology is basically one elephant in the room after another. One of them is that there is a group of aggressive self appointed representatives. No one knows who legitimized them to speak, no one knows who they really represent etc. etc. etc. Other trans people are the group who can call out this elephant in the room the most credibly and the most effectively.
NO. If you believe that, then you believe that mentally diseased people, most often men, are more effective at challenging these beliefs than people, most of whom are women, who are sane and grounded. In other words, men can speak more credibly than women. I totally reject that notion.
Brilliantly expressed by Andy. Well done.👍 Hard to believe SCEPTICS are falling for this unscientific drivel. Aren't they supposed to disbelieve everything unless they see actual EVIDENCE to support it . Isn't that what being sceptical is supposed to mean ?? Looks like they'll need to redefine that as well So completely stupid and bizarre !!👎👎
That Aaron starts off with the belief that trans women are women, while unable to define women, reveals the lack of skepticism. Also holy batman isolated demands for rigor in regards to the standards he holds to the littman study while providing no studies, no less explaining how they meet his rigorous demands for truth.
So. Aaron's arguments for why “gender” should not be exposed to skeptical interrogation are these:
1. Just as “sexuality” is a really, really, really vague concept, so too is “gender identity,” therefore if we can legislate based on sexuality (no discrimination allowed against gays & lesbians), then we can also legislate based on gender identity. (Me: what.)
2. There is a moral panic (meaning, much ado about nothing) around the diagnosis & treatment of gender dysphoria. Extraordinarily increased referrals for GD are down to social acceptance, and funding for treatment, not social contagion. Littmans's ROGD hypothesis has been soundly debunked. (Me: No, societal backlash occurred from an ideological standpoint, about Littman's study of the numbers and her hypothesis. Study is ongoing. Meanwhile, GD clinics in Sweden, the Netherlands, and Finland have in the past year narrowed use of puberty blockers.)
3. “Woman” means adult human female, including trans women. Aaron: “Whether someone counts as a woman ultimately comes down to how they understand themselves, because there are no other essential features that determine who is and is not a woman. … [T]here is no other feature of them that can outweigh their genuine understanding of their identity as a woman.” (Me: Words fail.)
Aaron sounds like he needs to return to middle-school (or earlier) biology. He's apparently never had sex and never looked at a naked human. Words fail, indeed.