Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Awaclus]

Most gay people in the 50s would probably have pressed a button to make themselves not-gay, so was being gay a sickness in the 50s?

Do you think that in the future, if trans rights improve as much as gay rights have improved since the 50s until now, people with gender dysphoria would not press a button to make themselves not dysphoric?

[faust]

Citation needed! I mean sure it's a theoretical spectrum, as in, you can find at least one person who has a small desire to change their gender. The question is whether the graph looks like this or like this

Seems to me like assuming a normal distribution is a good default, and anything that goes against it is what I'd like to see evidence for.

However I did find this study that seems to indicate a pretty spread-out distribution:

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02517-y

[faust]

Most gay people in the 50s would probably have pressed a button to make themselves not-gay, so was being gay a sickness in the 50s?

Do you think that in the future, if trans rights improve as much as gay rights have improved since the 50s until now, people with gender dysphoria would not press a button to make themselves not dysphoric?

I think that in an ideal future, fewer people would experience gender dysphoria because the concept of gender would be erased.

[silverspawn]

I mean, for some values of "a lot". If you put them all in one place, it would probably be a big crowd. Lots of people with gender dysphoria are also cis, and these ideas are pretty mainstream in such circles, but that is I imagine not what you mean.

Does a majority of trans people with gender dysphoria think that? I strongly doubt it.

Ok, but is it possible that there are many of them, lots of them watch destiny's stream because they feel like they don't belong anywhere else (obviously not in right wing spaces, and also not in trans spaces), and hundreds of them write to him describing how they feel, and that's how he has these beliefs, i.e., out of compassion rather than transphobia?

Again, I say "trans", and you substitute "gender dysphoric", as if these are the same thing. Most gay people in the 50s would probably have pressed a button to make themselves not-gay, so was being gay a sickness in the 50s?

Ok I confess, the concept of trans without gender dysphoria doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Even if gender dysphoria is a spectrum (the paper is paywalled and scihub can't get around it) well then there is still a spectrum, so affected people at least feel some amount of dysphoria. If someone actually doesn't feel any dysphoria and decides to "transition" anyway, then yeah, I need someone to explain to me why the primary effect of this is not to cause more suffering for people with dysphoria/why it's important to respect this since by assumption those people don't suffer without transitioning.

I literally haven't thought about this point before today, so maybe there are good arguments I'm not familiar with.

[silverspawn]

Like why is it not definitionally the case that people who transition without dysphoria have no good reason to transition?

[silverspawn]

Seems to me like assuming a normal distribution is a good default, and anything that goes against it is what I'd like to see evidence for.

depends on which distribution is more common, which I also don't know, but I'll look into it either way

[faust]

Like why is it not definitionally the case that people who transition without dysphoria have no good reason to transition?

IDK, if I go to the hairdresser despite having no hair dysphoria, do I have no good reason to go to the hairdresser?

[faust]

Ok, but is it possible that there are many of them, lots of them watch destiny's stream because they feel like they don't belong anywhere else (obviously not in right wing spaces, and also not in trans spaces), and hundreds of them write to him describing how they feel, and that's how he has these beliefs, i.e., out of compassion rather than transphobia?

It's possible. You will notice that I did not call Destiny transphobic. But even if he has these beliefs out of compassion, that doesn't make them good views. Destiny mentioned Contrapoints, so I know that at least on some level he has engaged with different points of view and rejected them, so this is not a question of ignorance.

[Awaclus]

Ok I confess, the concept of trans without gender dysphoria doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Even if gender dysphoria is a spectrum (the paper is paywalled and scihub can't get around it) well then there is still a spectrum, so affected people at least feel some amount of dysphoria. If someone actually doesn't feel any dysphoria and decides to "transition" anyway, then yeah, I need someone to explain to me why the primary effect of this is not to cause more suffering for people with dysphoria/why it's important to respect this since by assumption those people don't suffer without transitioning.

Why wouldn't you respect it? I can see arguments as to why e.g. the government should subsidize transitioning as a treatment to gender dysphoria but not otherwise, but to prevent people from getting whatever modifications to their bodies they want would very obviously just violate their body autonomy for no reason, and regulating it through social disapproval instead of legislation is very different in degree but not at all different in kind. I don't see what this suffering to people with dysphoria is supposed to be.

[silverspawn]

So you have gender dysphoria, this thing that makes people feel perpetually uncomfortable. There is no cure and the only intervention that sort of helps is to try to transition. Say you do that. Well, you're not at home in right leaning places now because they're full of transphobia. You're not at home IRL because you probably don't pass a sizeable number of people will find you downright gross. The only home you seem to have are lefty pro trance communities.

But now assume that these people decide that actually you don't need to do anything to transition, it only matters what you view yourself as, and anyone who claims to be trans should be equally accepted. At the same time the culture alienates white cis men to the point that someone like Jordan Peterson, who is neither particularly smart nor particularly charming, becomes one of the most influential thinkers in the world primarily based on not doing that. Yet you also give anyone of these men the opportunity to get all this attention and social status, and you remove all the barriers that made this costly. The argument against worries that men will claim to be trans to do weird shit has always been that no one would go through the process just for that, and that's true, but it stops being true if you remove all barriers for entry.

And if these spaces are inevitably dominated by people who don't actually have gender dysphoria (I'm saying if but afaik this has already more than happened), well then you've destroyed the only community that these people have.

At the same time, you have this political fight where conservative people think this entire thing is crazy, and supposedly the argument is that there is a really awful thing happening here with depression and suicide rates through the roof, and this intervention is one of the only things that has a proven track record of helping at least some. Do you not see how softening the trans label and removing all barriers of entry makes the entire thing that much less credible? I think I brought up this type of argument before and didn't get any daylight at least with faust, but I continue to think that fighting the political extremes on your side is one of the most important things to do to win elections, and conversely, making the extremes more extreme is one of the most damaging things.

And it also just muddies the waters. You're lumping two completely different things under the same label; this is just bad instrumental rationality and bound to lead to problems like people following the wrong advice.

And for what? That's the thing I come back to. If it was important to do this, then maybe. But faust literally likened it to someone getting a haircut. If the positive stakes are that low, then yeah, it seems to me that allowing everyone into the fold is a huge net negative. I feel each one of these three reasons ougweighs the upside by itself.

And also if we are going to say that everyone can be trans, why don't we do the same for race? The only answer I have is because there is no race dysphoria, and you've just made that reason invalid. Why have all people who wanted to join another race or ethnicity been ridiculed? What makes this less legitimate than a person without dysphoria claiming to be trans?

[silverspawn]

Oh my god this person who kept bugging me about game theory and in the end literally asked if I write their Facharbeit I'm so annoyed and also amused at the same time

[silverspawn]

Can you imagine just asking a in this context much higher status person to write a school essay for you jesus chrsit I wish I had so little social scruples. Life would be so vastly easier

[silverspawn]

An essay that's due tomorrow when we're in the same time zone and it's past 1AM

[silverspawn]

(When I say don't open the fold I obviously(?) don't mean misgender people; I'm going to use the pronouns anyone tells me to use every time without question. But I don't think / don't yet have been presented with the positive case for why it would be a good idea to encourage people to identify as trans.)

[silverspawn]

if they have no gender dysphoria

[faust]

So much to address... let's go point by point.

At the same time the culture alienates white cis men

if these spaces are inevitably dominated by people who don't actually have gender dysphoria [...] then you've destroyed the [...] community

You seem to be at the same time arguing that "these spaces" (whatever that means) are too exclusive and not exclusive enough. So which is it?

Generally, I think right now there is a miniscule amount of trans people who do not experience dysphoria, so all of this pearl-clutching seems way overblown to me. But let's say there is a problem where you're in a space and the number of people with gender dysphoria is small. So what's stopping you from forming a gender dysphoria support group, which is explicitly for people with gender dysphoria? There, problem solved.

Yet you also give anyone of these men the opportunity to get all this attention and social status, and you remove all the barriers that made this costly. The argument against worries that men will claim to be trans to do weird shit has always been that no one would go through the process just for that, and that's true, but it stops being true if you remove all barriers for entry.

So, I'm confused about a number of things here. The first sentence: Are you still talking about the like of Jordan Petersen (which was what the last sentence was about), or are you talking about men who claim to be trans (which seems to me like it makes more sense contextually, but less sense grammatically)?

Then we get to the next bit: What exactly are you worried about here? We're talking about trans communities still, right? Is the worry that men will enter trans spaces to sexually assault trans people? Usually this concern is more framed around men predating on cis women, but that doesn't make sense in this context.

Ultimately, if someone is doing a sexual assault, that is illegal, regardless of whether they are a cis men, someone who claim to be trans for some nefarious purpose, or an actual trans person. In either of these cases, it is fine and probably good (and from my experience also what tends to happen) if the community shuns them.

And if these spaces are inevitably dominated by people who don't actually have gender dysphoria (I'm saying if but afaik this has already more than happened)

And this is definitely the point where I go: "And where is the evidence for that?"

Do you not see how softening the trans label and removing all barriers of entry makes the entire thing that much less credible?

No. Some women get operations to reduce their cup size because it is medically indicated; they have chronic back pain otherwise. Other women do it for cosmetic reasons, or because they don't like how society treats them if the have big breasts. Does anyone argue that the latter makes the former less credible?

I continue to think that fighting the political extremes on your side is one of the most important things to do to win elections

Come on, you cannot expect to win any ground with that argument with me. I am the political extreme. The problem is, and continues to be, that the right does not fight their political extreme, and they are decently successful with that strategy. If the left was to fight their political extreme, the result would just be that political discourse shifhts further and further right as the right opens the Overton window to that side and the left continues to shut it down on the other side. And look at the political landscape - this is exactly what is happening.

And it also just muddies the waters. You're lumping two completely different things under the same label; this is just bad instrumental rationality and bound to lead to problems like people following the wrong advice.

You claim this, but I don't think I do. My conception of a trans person is just "a person whose gender assigned at birth does not match the gender they perceive themselves to be". Whether this comes with dysphoria is not integral.

Here's a spicy analogy (and please don't think that I want to make the case that what you're doing is equally bad): When colonialists went to Africa/America and encountered indigenous peoples, they could by the same token claim "you're lumping two completely different things under the same label" if you referred to both white and indigenous people as "humans".

But faust literally likened it to someone getting a haircut. If the positive stakes are that low, then yeah, it seems to me that allowing everyone into the fold is a huge net negative.

This just seems like bad faith to me. My haircut comparison obviously wasn't meant to say that transitioning is on the same level in terms of stakes, I just wanted to know why you think there is a categorical difference between the two. To be fair, Awaclus made this point better. Unfortunately you did not respond.

And also if we are going to say that everyone can be trans, why don't we do the same for race?

I am not saying that "everyone can be trans". Please don't strawman my position.

[silverspawn]

This just seems like bad faith to me. My haircut comparison obviously wasn't meant to say that transitioning is on the same level in terms of stakes, I just wanted to know why you think there is a categorical difference between the two. To be fair, Awaclus made this point better. Unfortunately you did not respond.

No. If I'm asking about the benefit and you respond with an analogy, it's not my fault if I extrapolate the benefit from the analogy. You're walking back the property of the analogy I cared about. I'm fine with the new claim (and I'll respond to everything else), but no this was not bad faith.

[silverspawn]

@First two paragraphs: Ok so this was clearly communicated poorly. My point was that

(1) there is an incentive for people claiming to be trans, and
(2) there is not much of a downside for doing so, therefore
(3) there will be people who aren't serious claiming to be trans

I brought up Jordan Peterson only as evidence for (1). I'm not saying this is good or bad; I'm not even saying that white men are correct in feeling socially rejected. I'm just pointing out that a lot of them do.

Is the worry that men will enter trans spaces to sexually assault trans people

No, I don't think that's a thing, at all. My point is that the reason why it's not a thing is that no one will transition just to go into another bathroom because transitioning is such a huge step. Analogously, you'd hope that no one is going to claim to be trans for the attention or social status, but unfortunately, but here this no longer works because now the barrier of entry is actually low.

So transphobic people made a terrible argument, but the all-inclusive philosophy retroactively makes the argument non-terrible for a different context. That was the point, which confess sounds much more complicated in writing than in my head.

Come on, you cannot expect to win any ground with that argument with me

I'm not, but I still think it's true (and I was responding to Awaclus).

I think the analysis is completely backwards. In the USA, the reason why the country moved rightward is because the left failed to fight its extremes. If the left didn't show such a level of tolerance for the most extreme voices, then Trump wouldn't have in 2016.

I still don't understand how the "left goes further left -> country goes further left" causal mechanism is supposed to work, like at all. The way I think it works is that social media (and even mainstream media to an extent) picks out the most extreme things on the other side and people define themselves in opposition to that. The more extreme the left, the more ammunition for the right and vice versa. I think there's lots of evidence that this happens. So the causal mechanisms I see is "left goes further left -> median goes further right" and "right goes further right -> median goes further left". (Feel free to respond to this or not.)

I am not saying that "everyone can be trans". Please don't strawman my position.

I meant "can" in the sense of "if they decide to claim to be trans, they'll get accepted. And in that sense, you are absolutely saying that (or if not I don't understand the position).

[faust]

@First two paragraphs: Ok so this was clearly communicated poorly. My point was that

(1) there is an incentive for people claiming to be trans, and
(2) there is not much of a downside for doing so, therefore
(3) there will be people who aren't serious claiming to be trans

I brought up Jordan Peterson only as evidence for (1).

I fail to see how Jordan Petersen is evidence for (1). I don't know what the incentive is.

"There is not much downside for doing so" is a pretty wild claim. There may not be much downside for doing so form inside the trans community, but you know, transphobia exists, and people who publicly say they're trans will be harassed, assaulted and quite possibly receive death threats.

So transphobic people made a terrible argument, but the all-inclusive philosophy retroactively makes the argument non-terrible for a different context. That was the point, which confess sounds much more complicated in writing than in my head.

Except the argument remains terrible. A man can just go into a woman's bathroom without claiming to be trans, you know? It's not like there is someone at the entrance who checks your ID. Then if they are called out, they can say they made a mistake instead of saying they're trans. This whole bathroom thing is so silly.

I meant "can" in the sense of "if they decide to claim to be trans, they'll get accepted. And in that sense, you are absolutely saying that (or if not I don't understand the position).

Well yes, this is true. You made a comparison to race, and it is also true that people can claim to be black, and this will get accepted, because there are white people that can pass as black and vice versa. Noone is doing a race purity check.

And what is your position here? Even if we allow dysphoria as the signifier, what is stopping people from falsely claiming to be dysphoric?

Finally, to be perfectly clear, I don't think "people fake being trans" is a thing that happens on any significant scale, and you failed to present any evidence for this. Therefore all of this remains completely hypothetical.

[silverspawn]

And what is your position here? Even if we allow dysphoria as the signifier, what is stopping people from falsely claiming to be dysphoric?

The fact that they have to lie will stop them. My story for how I-think-not-really-trans people claim to be trans didn't involve lying to other people, it involved deluding yourself due to external incentives, which is a thing people do all the time. If the common understanding was just "trans people are people who feel gender dysphoria and choose to transition", then you would have to lie to get there. This takes a completely different person to do.

[silverspawn]

it is also true that people can claim to be black, and this will get accepted

Only if other people think they're born black! It's not at all accepted for people to transition into another ethnicity or race, that's the point; do you disagree with this?

[silverspawn]

I fail to see how Jordan Petersen is evidence for (1). I don't know what the incentive is.

If Jordan Peterson can become one of the most influential people in the world just by showing compassion toward white males, then clearly there is a shit ton of white males who feel like their social groups don't show compassion for them. Yet the left obviously has compassion for anyone claiming to be trans. How is that not evidence of (1)? I think that's proof of (1).

[faust]

I still don't understand how the "left goes further left -> country goes further left" causal mechanism is supposed to work, like at all. The way I think it works is that social media (and even mainstream media to an extent) picks out the most extreme things on the other side and people define themselves in opposition to that. The more extreme the left, the more ammunition for the right and vice versa. I think there's lots of evidence that this happens. So the causal mechanisms I see is "left goes further left -> median goes further right" and "right goes further right -> median goes further left". (Feel free to respond to this or not.)

I decided to respond to this separately because it's really a different topic.

I think in order to discuss this on a level of evidence, we would first need to agree on specific time periods where either thing could be observed. You say there is lots of evidence; can you lay it out for me?

For the US, I would say: The extreme right has shifted further right pretty consistenty since Reagan and leading up to Trump. The extreme left, in the same time, has shifted towards the center under Clinton, then gradually shifted to the left during the later Obama years and more significantly starting with the 2016 primary.

[silverspawn]

Except the argument remains terrible. A man can just go into a woman's bathroom without claiming to be trans, you know? It's not like there is someone at the entrance who checks your ID. Then if they are called out, they can say they made a mistake instead of saying they're trans. This whole bathroom thing is so silly.

I think you're still missing the point? Of course the bathroom thing is silly. I'm saying the *analogous* argument for online trans communities (and some hardcore IRL trans communities as well) is now not-stupid.

[faust]

it is also true that people can claim to be black, and this will get accepted

Only if other people think they're born black! It's not at all accepted for people to transition into another ethnicity or race, that's the point; do you disagree with this?

No; I think trans people are also only accepted if other people think they are born trans.