All about Serafina (Split)

For any and all other discussion, i.e., not relating to Star Wars or Star Trek or standards of evidence. A reminder: Don't spam, don't flame, and stay reasonable.
Post Reply
User avatar
Tyralak
Bridge Officer
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 4:39 am
Contact:

Re: Transreality

Post by Tyralak » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:54 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote: There is no specific seat of gender identity. We can have XX individuals who seem quite male, and XY individuals who seem quite female. We can have individuals whose genitalia are unclear.
I was wondering how we would deal with the thorny issue of hermaphrodites in this discussion.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Jul 29, 2010 6:57 am

I know Kor can't reply to this, but it needs debunking nevertheless.
PROVE WHAT?...A NEGATIVE?.

IS THIS IT AGAIN?, IS THIS ALL YOU HAVE JUST LIKE THE BRAIN ISSUE AND BIOLOGY AND THE SOCIAL ISSUE?????.
How is that demanding a negative proof?
We prove that things are not harmful all the time. It is done for every single medication, it is done for individual treatments for patients, and it is done in psychology as well.
It is a simple matter of observing negative side effects, and we can even predict the types of side effects that are to be expected - since we have already observed the effects of an identical form of "therapy" on a very similar group (ex-gay therapy).

The fact that you complain about it rather than just posting proof is by itself proof that you can not find any that Zucker or anyone else performed a long-term study for this.

THE BURDEN IS YOURS, YOU HAVE DONE NOTHING BUT STRAWMAN AND TRY TO SHIFT THE BURDEN OF PROOF NOT ONLY TO ME BUT ALSO TO PROVE A NEGATIVE..
No it's not.
Else, by the same logic, you could demand that i show a study that a piece of medication is not safe instead of demanding a study that shows that it is safe.
Guess what: Pharmaceutic companies are required to prove that their products are safe all the time. And if i could not find a study for a medication that says that it is safe, i would be worried.
I see no reason why this principle should not apply to psychology.
What we have here is a therapy which, when used under slightly different circumstances, is known to be unsuccessful and harmful. It's like advocating one type of cancer (or whatever) medication for a specific cancer when it has been shown to be useless and harmful on another type of cancer.

YOU PROVE HIM WRONG, IVE GOT HIM WITH QUALIFICATIONS, RESPECT AND ACCLAIM FROM HIS PEERS, HIS WORK EARNING HIM GLOBAL RENOUN AND POSITIONS IN THE HIGHEST OF AREAS IN HIS FIELD.

WHAT DO YOU HAVE???...WHAT DO YOU HAVE????...

SHOW ME YOUR PAPERS ON HIM DISPROVING HIM COME ON DO IT, PROVE HE DOES HARM COME ON DO IT.
No.
His respect by his peers does not replace the need for an actual study. All scientists are under (or are supposed to) the same scrutiny, regardless of their position.
His works is NOT copied anywhere but in North America, that alone is proof enough that it is not solid. That he is friends with high-ranking members of the APA doesn't translate into quality of his work.


@Oraghan:
So you assume it is likely to be harmful, and you require other people to prove it is not, without even actually first presenting that his method is dangerous?
I have done just that. You just chose to ignore it.
Zuckers method is identical to the aversion therapy that is used in "ex-gay therapies". It uses the same reinforcement of stereotypical gender behavior, the same suppression of emotions and the same punishment (tough it is not necessarily as severe) when the patients just display the slightest "cross-gender" behavior which is defined very broadly.
That is more than enough reason the be suspicious. But even if that was not the case, to advocate it we need independent verification of the studies results. I could not find any, and evidently Kor was neither.
If his results are not verified independently, they might just be made up.
Study please.
Even the APA disagrees with aversion therapy. And it is not used anywhere but in Northern Europe. Do you need any more?
I don't know about you, but shouldn't we get proof of adverse effects by now, since it seemingly started in the mid 70s?
How could we?
Zucker doesn't care about such effects, he is not looking. No independent research has been done, most likely because Zucker is known to be uncooperative with such studies (given that you would need the patients history and identity for such a study, you need the cooperation).


The burden of proof is on the person arguing in favor. The burden of proof is on the person that is arguing that something is harmless.
In other words, it is on YOU.
Since there is no proof, you are trying to complain about it and shift the burden. If there was any proof, then you would just show it. In fact, you do not even link or quote any studies from Zucker himself, you are just appealing to his authority.



Edit:
Actually, i would like to further disprove that Zuckers "treatment" saves the children from distress and potential suicide.

First, let's look at the suicide causes. While Transwomen have a high suicide rate, this number is much lower for transmen - mostly because transitioning is much easier for them. The suicide rate in transwomen is also higher the older they started transitioning - starting later generally reduces the success of transitioning. They are also significantly higher in areas where transitioning is harder, such as most of the USA. There, you do not only have to deal with a large amount of bigotry, but it is also not covered by medical insurance. Since it costs tens of thousands of dollars, many people just can't afford to transition.
Conclusively, the main cause for suicide is unsuccessful transitioning. Preventing transitioning, hindering it or limiting it's success is hence detrimental.

Now, let's look at the results of Zuckers method. The most likely result is that it suppresses transsexuality instead of curing it. He has no long-term studies that show that it is actually cured, and we know that transsexuality can be suppressed for a long time - there is a strong social reinforcement for such suppression. In fact, many transsexual people suppressed their transsexuality for reasons that are very similar to Zuckers "treatment" - their actual gender was negatively reinforced during their childhood. Yet that does not prevent or cure transsexuality in their cases, it merely prevents them from expressing their actual gender. We can observe that the childhood and later life of such people are often very troubled, since their suppressed emotions cause negative psychological effects.
So, what does Zuckers treatment do? It prevents children from living according to their gender. If it does not actually "cure" it, then they will express their gender later in life. But the later transitioning starts, the harder it is - and as i have showed above, that increases suffering and suicide rates.

Conclusively, since Zucker has no proof to the contrary, it is likely that his treatment ultimately increases the suffering of transsexual people.


Edit 2:
I would also like to address the damage he actually does.

First, the number 80-90% is dubious. We do not know how Zucker choses his patients (i did not find his diagnostic methods). We therefore do not know whether all of his patients are actually transsexual. A good chunk of the 80% he "saves" could very be not transsexual at all. That's like testing a drug to treat a specific disease and include 50% people in my study who do not have that disease - and then claim because 50% did not have the disease after taking the drug, it is very successful.
In order to have any meaning to his 80%-claim, we need to know
-his diagnostic method
-whether the children he "treats" would later display transsexuality if NOT treated
We know neither. Therefore, we can not take this figure at face value even for short-term effects.

Second, even if we take his 80% claim at face value - then he still harms 20% of his patients. As i explained above, his treatment does two things
-it eliminates the free expression of one self and furthers suppression of emotions
-it is specifically aimed at suppressing transsexuality. Even if it "heals" the 80%, the 20% are not suppressed.
-That suppression will make their transition harder.
Therefore, even if his 80% claim is absolutely true, he still harms 20% of his patients severely. One out of five is a BIG failure rate. Even if his claim was true, that's not something i would recklessly advocate.

But we have to consider the whole picture
-we have no independent proof that his method has any long-term success
-we know that it enforces harmful behavior in children, regardless of the success
-we can not even be sure about his short-term 80% success
-Every child that is not "cured" will take severe damage.
Totally, it is very likely that a good portion of his patients aren't actually transsexual. These children will go out there with stereotypical, extreme and inflexible behavior and suppressed emotions. That's the best case scenario. Children who are actually transsexual will go out there with all of the above AND suppressed transsexuality. That does not only cause damage on it's own, but a later transition will also be much harder.

That's why i do not approve of Zuckers method. It has too many similarities to "ex-gay" therapies, it has no independent verification and even if we take everything he say at face value, he is still severely damaging one out of five of his patients - and most likely much more than that.


Edit 3:
(Hint: That's where Zucker works)
A 1984 article in the Toronto Star indicated that between 1969 and 1984, 90% of all people seeking transsexual health services were turned away at The Clarke. The Clarke averaged about 5 acceptances a year, totalling about 100 people. In other words, they denied access to over 900 people during that time. [2]Thats a HUGE number.
Effectively, that bases a huge amount of their Research (15 years) on only 10% of the potential test population.
Of course, that might have changed, but such practices make them look very dubious.
Last edited by Serafina on Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:36 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Jul 29, 2010 1:21 pm

Mr. Oragahn wrote:
JMS wrote: Biological truths

There is no specific seat of gender identity. We can have XX individuals who seem quite male, and XY individuals who seem quite female.
Like, what? 1 out of 1000?
Seems like a typical case of an exception that proves the rule.
We can have individuals whose genitalia are unclear.
Rare, abnormal cases. Now for these cases, obvious typical sex related physical attributes will be used, along cultural codes, to call the individual a he or she.
This ties with my point about the necessity of the alteration to an individual's plastic to be good enough to convince members of the society about the targeted perceived gender.
You can't just dismiss something because it is rare. Heck, 1 in 1000 (a number which you made up) is not even rare, that's a lot.

Overall, it is much easier to treat someone according to gender rather than according to sex, since the former is more visible and clearer.

And the results of transitioning are often sufficient to fool medical professionals (unless they do specific tests, of course).
But even if it isn't - that just shows that you discriminate based on how someone looks.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Jul 29, 2010 4:45 pm

Serafina wrote:Rare, abnormal cases. Now for these cases, obvious typical sex related physical attributes will be used, along cultural codes, to call the individual a he or she.
When defining the rules, basing their definition on exceptions is silly.
And the results of transitioning are often sufficient to fool medical professionals (unless they do specific tests, of course).
But even if it isn't - that just shows that you discriminate based on how someone looks.
Welcome to the real world, Ser.
Not all discrimination is bad, and it's precisely based on the appearance that we first define the gender of someone we meet IRL. Or do you really believe people will be willing to call an individual a she even if said individual looks like Joe Pesci, because that individual wants to be called a she?
What would the difference be between that and a person claiming to be Abraham Lincoln but obviously not being Abraham Lincoln?
There's a moment when absurd extreme liberalism has to come down to earth and get a sense of reality.
If you want to be called a woman, you will have to really look like one. As I said, it doesn't mean being handsome, but really looking female. Oh I'm sure some people won't care, but I will and I really doubt, dear Ser, that I'm alone on this lil planet. I may make a bet and think that the majority of the planet would actually share my view on that.
I can use feminine pronouns and what have you on Internet if it makes you happy, fine, but don't even expect me to call you a woman if I see you and you don't look like one but more like a transvestite with forced make up, fake breasts and a wig.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Jul 29, 2010 7:49 pm

When defining the rules, basing their definition on exceptions is silly.
Oh, really?
We do that all the time. We HAVE to do it to respect the rights of minorities. Unless you do not respect their rights, of course.
Welcome to the real world, Ser.
Not all discrimination is bad, and it's precisely based on the appearance that we first define the gender of someone we meet IRL. Or do you really believe people will be willing to call an individual a she even if said individual looks like Joe Pesci, because that individual wants to be called a she?
I would. I DO. But that's because i respect the wishes of that person.
People like you are not, but that's because they do not respect that person. Instead, you moan and complain and discriminate because that person is different and doesn't fit into your narrow definition. Which is exactly what you are doing right now.
What would the difference be between that and a person claiming to be Abraham Lincoln but obviously not being Abraham Lincoln?
You don't see a difference between the two?
Then you either do not want to see the difference, or you are lying about it.
The answer is: Because i have empirical proof that that person is not the Abraham Lincoln (tough he might just happen to carry that name). You do not have empirical proof of that (other) persons gender. You can NOT determine gender based on physical appearance. You can normally discern gender from clothing, and if someone behaves, dresses etc. male, then he won't complain if you initially identify his gender as male.
There's a moment when absurd extreme liberalism has to come down to earth and get a sense of reality.
Oh my god, is you small world-view challenged? Quick, someone do something.
You can not present any harm that comes from that liberalism. You just don't like it, and therefore oppose it.
If you want to be called a woman, you will have to really look like one. As I said, it doesn't mean being handsome, but really looking female. Oh I'm sure some people won't care, but I will and I really doubt, dear Ser, that I'm alone on this lil planet. I may make a bet and think that the majority of the planet would actually share my view on that.
Ah, an appeal to majority. How nice. And how logically invalid.
Besides, most transwomen look quite female and nearly all transmen look completely male. You even contradict yourself.
I can use feminine pronouns and what have you on Internet if it makes you happy, fine, but don't even expect me to call you a woman if I see you and you don't look like one but more like a transvestite with forced make up, fake breasts and a wig.
God, that is SO ignorant.
What is "forced make up" even supposed to mean? Sure, i wear makeup, and more than your average woman - but because i still have to because i still have to cover my beard shadow (not much longer, after which i will reduce the make up severely). And it's still decent, unless i want to go to a party or something.
Fake breasts? I do not fake any more than any other woman (hint: pushup). No implants, a natural A-cup right now.
A wig? Nope, that's my natural hair, it's not even completely artificially colored.
And the same is true for practically all transwomen who start at a age before 30, with a few unlucky exceptions.

But of course, your prejudice dictates otherwise.
But if it dictates that a woman has to look female, you are out of luck - most transwomen do. Your prejudice is not even internally consistent.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Thu Jul 29, 2010 9:34 pm

Serafina wrote:
When defining the rules, basing their definition on exceptions is silly.
Oh, really?
We do that all the time. We HAVE to do it to respect the rights of minorities. Unless you do not respect their rights, of course.
That persecution card again. You already granted yourself a right that is nowhere close to being a right until it's properly debated. Don't claim it's a right. It's only a wish. Period.
Welcome to the real world, Ser.
Not all discrimination is bad, and it's precisely based on the appearance that we first define the gender of someone we meet IRL. Or do you really believe people will be willing to call an individual a she even if said individual looks like Joe Pesci, because that individual wants to be called a she?
I would. I DO. But that's because i respect the wishes of that person.
I wouldn't, because that person would be a total wacko, and giving in into his delusion would be irresponsible and nuts.
Child Kingdom. Let the kid bitch long enough until you get tired of it and the kids gets what he wants.
There are rules, there are laws, there are regulations.
People like you are not, but that's because they do not respect that person.
For the case at hand, I'd counsel the person in question to get his head checked and see someone who can help him.
That assumes I wouldn't burst in laughs.
For the reminder, we're talking about this guy...

Image

... coming to you and saying he's a girl.
Mkay.
Try with a transvestite variant, it won't change. You can plaster as much make up as you want all over his face, add fake boobs and dress him up with skirts, it's still a failure.

I just highlighted how your opinion on this is barely above ridiculous. Or perhaps below ridiculous, I don't know.
Instead, you moan and complain and discriminate because that person is different and doesn't fit into your narrow definition. Which is exactly what you are doing right now.
Not moaning and complaining much, I'm afraid. That's your style. And my definition seems to be the common sense that I've yet to see most people ditch because of a minority's minority's minority's wishes.
What would the difference be between that and a person claiming to be Abraham Lincoln but obviously not being Abraham Lincoln?
You don't see a difference between the two?
What? No, really. Both would be attempting to convince other people of what they're clearly not. The lunacy of your position is that I can even pick totally extreme examples, yet instead of pointing them out for what they are and perhaps refusing to debate them, you actually go right to the absolute end of your extremist position and find yourself defending typical asylum nutcases to get the legal right to be recognized for what they are.
The answer is: Because i have empirical proof that that person is not the Abraham Lincoln (tough he might just happen to carry that name). You do not have empirical proof of that (other) persons gender.
Image

*hawt* (I like girls)
You can NOT determine gender based on physical appearance.
Yep, you can.
I wonder if what's most absurd about it this insane rhetorical reversal you're going through just to cram the final yap in that train wreck of a "discussion".
You've been literally harassing people over pages about the most important social relevance, which is about codes, most of which, not to say the trampling majority, are largely sight based in a way or another, and now suddenly, conveniently, just to get the upper hand, you argue the exact opposite. Make up your mind.
You can normally discern gender from clothing, and if someone behaves, dresses etc. male, then he won't complain if you initially identify his gender as male.
People aren't Mister Invisible. You can actually see more than just the clothes. Like, the face, you know.
There's a moment when absurd extreme liberalism has to come down to earth and get a sense of reality.
Oh my god, is you small world-view challenged? Quick, someone do something.
I'm afraid to remind you that my world is actually much larger than yours, like it or not.
You can not present any harm that comes from that liberalism.
Harm is not the question. The question is if we should grant the people of my two examples any legal right they'd claim in regards to their perceived identity.
I should have picked George Washington as a better example.
You just don't like it, and therefore oppose it.
I'm merely eyeballing the distance from the fringes of your position.
If you want to be called a woman, you will have to really look like one. As I said, it doesn't mean being handsome, but really looking female. Oh I'm sure some people won't care, but I will and I really doubt, dear Ser, that I'm alone on this lil planet. I may make a bet and think that the majority of the planet would actually share my view on that.
Ah, an appeal to majority. How nice. And how logically invalid.
If you think so. And yet I'd assuredly bet my hat on it. Dunno why.
Besides, most transwomen look quite female and nearly all transmen look completely male. You even contradict yourself.
A contradiction? Where? Don't be silly.
I can use feminine pronouns and what have you on Internet if it makes you happy, fine, but don't even expect me to call you a woman if I see you and you don't look like one but more like a transvestite with forced make up, fake breasts and a wig.
God, that is SO ignorant.
What is "forced make up" even supposed to mean? Sure, i wear makeup, and more than your average woman - but because i still have to because i still have to cover my beard shadow (not much longer, after which i will reduce the make up severely). And it's still decent, unless i want to go to a party or something.
Fake breasts? I do not fake any more than any other woman (hint: pushup). No implants, a natural A-cup right now.
A wig? Nope, that's my natural hair, it's not even completely artificially colored.
And the same is true for practically all transwomen who start at a age before 30, with a few unlucky exceptions.
It's all fine and dandy, but it just so misses the point. I don't care if you do use all of this. What matters is the result. See? That's the point I'm trying to make you understand.
But of course, your prejudice dictates otherwise.
Prejudice wah wah. Never tired of that shit, really.
Show me your pictures, and I'll tell you what I think, if you want to begin with a test here, on Internet. But don't complain if it doesn't suit your opinion.
Do you want to try?
But if it dictates that a woman has to look female, you are out of luck - most transwomen do.
I already looked at typical cases on the google page and some of them were just passable.
Again, not all of you are Harisus.
Your prejudice is not even internally consistent.
And consequences will never be the same, they usually say.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Thu Jul 29, 2010 10:06 pm

Ah, crap, accidentally deleted a long post. Either way, here is the short version:

So, essentially, Oraghan is arguing this:
-Rights are only granted if they suit him. We can forbid things even if allowing them causes no harm at all.
-All transwomen are nutjobs. Someone who looks very male can not possibly be a woman, and claiming so means he is insane. This ignores the sheer existence of transsexuality.
-All transwomen look like men, because he goggled a few pictures.

That is pure ignorance and prejudice (and i suppose you all know what i would say if i was allowed to).
If people like "Mr." Oraghan were allowed to run our society, transwomen would suffer from as much bigotry as they did half a century ago, they would have no legal rights and no chance of medical treatment. He does not recognize the needs or rights of transsexual people AT ALL. His opinion is based on nothing but backwards sexism, prejudice and ignorance. He is essentially the same as WILGA and Kor. He does not care about the suffering of others, as long as his world-view is not challenged.


Oh, and for our little prejudicial suppressor:
That's me:
Apparently, this site does not like that picture. Try that link instead.
The breasts are a little bit stuffed, but they are there. You can detect a fine beard shadow if you are lucky. My face is still changing thanks to hormones (i only had them for 5 months back then). Oh, and the eyebrows suck on that picture.
My passing is still going to improve substantially.
And this chance for happiness is what Oraghan wants to deny to every transwoman, since that challenges his little world view.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Fri Jul 30, 2010 12:57 am

Serafina wrote:How is that demanding a negative proof?
We prove that things are not harmful all the time. It is done for every single medication, it is done for individual treatments for patients, and it is done in psychology as well.
Rarely done for GMOs. But I digress. :)
It is a simple matter of observing negative side effects, and we can even predict the types of side effects that are to be expected - since we have already observed the effects of an identical form of "therapy" on a very similar group (ex-gay therapy).
And then why is it that despite your fears, you are not capable of linking both in showing that Zucker's method fails as much as the other treatment that seems the same?
All you're doing thus far is saying that it likely causes harm. As I said, it started in the mid 70s. It's about time we see some problems creeping up. There would be many patients going in their fourties, and possibly even more going into their thirties. Where's the evidence?
The fact that you complain about it rather than just posting proof is by itself proof that you can not find any that Zucker or anyone else performed a long-term study for this.
It's not Kor's job to prove it's harmful.
It's Zucker's team to show that their method has shown good results, and they claim so. Their success rate is an open admission of their opposite failure rate.
If you want people to agree with you, you'll have to do better than repeat your opinion like a broken record (although we do see a pattern here).
@Oraghan:
So you assume it is likely to be harmful, and you require other people to prove it is not, without even actually first presenting that his method is dangerous?
I have done just that. You just chose to ignore it.
You have done precisely nothing. You have only made a comparison and you think it's about the same. You're not exactly more of an expert than Zucker is, and you're certainly not providing proof that Zucker's method fails so dramatically and is harmful, despite your repeated claims.
Time you bring serious evidence or drop it.
But even if that was not the case, to advocate it we need independent verification of the studies results. I could not find any, and evidently Kor was neither.
If his results are not verified independently, they might just be made up.
Are you asking for the theory to be tested by another team? It seems that there's a strong growing resistance to avoid using Zucker's method.
It's going to be hard to counter-test his method if no one wants to try it to begin with.
Study please.
Even the APA disagrees with aversion therapy. And it is not used anywhere but in Northern Europe. Do you need any more?
Yes. Like the study I asked for. Not the one you *think* relates reliably.
I don't know about you, but shouldn't we get proof of adverse effects by now, since it seemingly started in the mid 70s?
How could we?
Zucker doesn't care about such effects, he is not looking. No independent research has been done, most likely because Zucker is known to be uncooperative with such studies (given that you would need the patients history and identity for such a study, you need the cooperation).
You need his signature now? Ask his patients. If you can't know their identity (and it's their right not to want to be found), make a global public call, ask for testimonies.
Start a blog that aims at giving the truth about the Zucker treatment. Talk about it, it will spread, and after several months, more likely one year, you'll start having replies. Perhaps faster, I may be a tad conservative about how fast things go on Internet.
The burden of proof is on the person arguing in favor. The burden of proof is on the person that is arguing that something is harmless.
In other words, it is on YOU.
Medicine is never 100% positive. Not to say that according to the long paper at the end of this page (retarded format ahoy!), you get to see that treatment can end when the insurance runs out. Zucker's treatments last between 1 and 7 years. Time for me to be conjectural: what if a percentage of the failures were due to the parents being too poor in a way or another?

Note: I'm citing this article solely for the insurance bit. They make claims for which they don't provide evidence either. They also randomly mix observations about therapies for would-be-gay/lesbian people and therapies for would-be-trans people. Yet, the LGBT hardly is one big family. Just one example.
They point out the opposition between trans and homos about GID - something we already discussed. It goes with its own level of irony.
Oh and there's Riki Wilchins, described thusly in the article: "born a man, s/he now identifies with no single gender".
I guess that makes her an ignorant, intolerant bigot the days when her mood swings towards the he's side.

More amusingly, by appealing to the Zachary Lipscomb case, they're concluded, perhaps unwittingly, that the society is so right that the solution is getting out of it.
Which happens to be the other solution I defend, and which we know one of its forms is the Hijra community.

It also even presents conflicting "facts" such as "brain-imaging studies show that the brains of gender-atypical people are larger and more complex than those of gender-rigid people."
You read that.

They also fall for the "oh but there are exceptions, so the definitions are more complicated and probably bogus as they are atm" argument (lack of penis, XX male syndrome) which argues that standards are wrong because of rare cases which are abnormal. Yet the crucial point is that the definition hinges on what should happen for everything to work right and properly, not on what could go wrong.
Since there is no proof, you are trying to complain about it and shift the burden. If there was any proof, then you would just show it. In fact, you do not even link or quote any studies from Zucker himself, you are just appealing to his authority.
I believe you should say that to Kor.
Edit:
Actually, i would like to further disprove that Zuckers "treatment" saves the children from distress and potential suicide.

First, let's look at the suicide causes. While Transwomen have a high suicide rate, this number is much lower for transmen - mostly because transitioning is much easier for them. The suicide rate in transwomen is also higher the older they started transitioning - starting later generally reduces the success of transitioning. They are also significantly higher in areas where transitioning is harder, such as most of the USA. There, you do not only have to deal with a large amount of bigotry, but it is also not covered by medical insurance. Since it costs tens of thousands of dollars, many people just can't afford to transition.
Conclusively, the main cause for suicide is unsuccessful transitioning. Preventing transitioning, hindering it or limiting it's success is hence detrimental.

Now, let's look at the results of Zuckers method. The most likely result is that it suppresses transsexuality instead of curing it. He has no long-term studies that show that it is actually cured, and we know that transsexuality can be suppressed for a long time - there is a strong social reinforcement for such suppression. In fact, many transsexual people suppressed their transsexuality for reasons that are very similar to Zuckers "treatment" - their actual gender was negatively reinforced during their childhood. Yet that does not prevent or cure transsexuality in their cases, it merely prevents them from expressing their actual gender. We can observe that the childhood and later life of such people are often very troubled, since their suppressed emotions cause negative psychological effects.
So, what does Zuckers treatment do? It prevents children from living according to their gender. If it does not actually "cure" it, then they will express their gender later in life. But the later transitioning starts, the harder it is - and as i have showed above, that increases suffering and suicide rates.

Conclusively, since Zucker has no proof to the contrary, it is likely that his treatment ultimately increases the suffering of transsexual people.
So you mean that on the 500 patients he treated, the 80% he claims to be successes are actually people living a dreadful life in a way or another?
And how come so few, if literally none thus far, have come out to say how their life turned to shit since those years at the clinic.
I mean, come on, these people know the Internet. With everything we find on Internet, from bullshit about aliens to reptilians and so on, don't you think the utter lack of people complaining about the Zucker treatment they underwent isn't already a clue or something a bit more conclusive than the groups shouting it's bad, it's harmful?
Not to say that Zucker works on blocking urges to transsexualism. He doesn't consider homosexuality as a failure (1).
Said article's best criticism of Zucker's method amounts to nothing more than hearsay:
She is pessimistic about Dr Zucker’s work. "The children I’ve seen who have been through the program typically say how they got help with their so-called problem," she says. "But they look uncomfortable and defeated, and they tend to avoid talking about their sexuality."
Edit 2:
I would also like to address the damage he actually does.

First, the number 80-90% is dubious. We do not know how Zucker choses his patients (i did not find his diagnostic methods).
He observes the severe cases of GID.
We therefore do not know whether all of his patients are actually transsexual.
A good chunk of the 80% he "saves" could very be not transsexual at all. That's like testing a drug to treat a specific disease and include 50% people in my study who do not have that disease - and then claim because 50% did not have the disease after taking the drug, it is very successful.
In order to have any meaning to his 80%-claim, we need to know
-his diagnostic method
-whether the children he "treats" would later display transsexuality if NOT treated
We know neither. Therefore, we can not take this figure at face value even for short-term effects.
From every article I've read thus far, including those painting him in a bad way as much as possible (2) by dismissing the relevance of children's innocence and complete different view about societal pressures, he's shown to treat the patients who would surely turn TS if given the opportunity.
The examples given here and there are about parents being tolerant until their kid really pushes the behaviour far and it spooks them. The exact same kind of behaviour as presented by Jona(h), who went from he to she at a very early age.
That said, not being obtuse, I agree that a clarification would be needed.
Second, even if we take his 80% claim at face value - then he still harms 20% of his patients. As i explained above, his treatment does two things
-it eliminates the free expression of one self and furthers suppression of emotions
-it is specifically aimed at suppressing transsexuality. Even if it "heals" the 80%, the 20% are not suppressed.
-That suppression will make their transition harder.
Therefore, even if his 80% claim is absolutely true, he still harms 20% of his patients severely. One out of five is a BIG failure rate. Even if his claim was true, that's not something i would recklessly advocate.
1. the expression of an ill conceived brain. Remember what we said about that?
2. nothing's perfect. Also, see the relevance of budget limits due to insurances, as pointed above, which can stop treatments earlier.
3. which in the case of the 80%, is a very positive point.
That said, I agree that I would not advocate for it blindly without further material to look at. The problem is that the ostracism is not helping him getting very vocal about what's going on.
But we have to consider the whole picture
-we have no independent proof that his method has any long-term success
-we know that it enforces harmful behavior in children, regardless of the success
-we can not even be sure about his short-term 80% success
-Every child that is not "cured" will take severe damage.
Totally, it is very likely that a good portion of his patients aren't actually transsexual. These children will go out there with stereotypical, extreme and inflexible behavior and suppressed emotions. That's the best case scenario. Children who are actually transsexual will go out there with all of the above AND suppressed transsexuality. That does not only cause damage on it's own, but a later transition will also be much harder.
1. See above.
2. In children? What do you mean?
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.
Edit 3:
(Hint: That's where Zucker works)
A 1984 article in the Toronto Star indicated that between 1969 and 1984, 90% of all people seeking transsexual health services were turned away at The Clarke. The Clarke averaged about 5 acceptances a year, totalling about 100 people. In other words, they denied access to over 900 people during that time. [2]Thats a HUGE number.
Effectively, that bases a huge amount of their Research (15 years) on only 10% of the potential test population.
Of course, that might have changed, but such practices make them look very dubious.
Could you please be more specific about the portion we should look at? The only bit mentions a ratio identical to the one you speak of seems to say something else entirely.

What I found is that:
The vast majority of men and women who had surgical sex changes in Toronto say they prefer their new gender.
Most support themselves in society without welfare or unemployment insurance.

Dr. Mary Steiner, head of the Gender Disorder Clinic and the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry, said recently the favorable results probably reflect the strict evaluation given those who seek such surgery. Only 1 in 10 men who request it are approved.
And it means that the vast majority of post-op people who are happy about it is because they've been filtered before the operation from the people, with only 10% of greenlights.
Which actually means that a total leeway, a laissez-faire about the way a person feels about his or her gender, could lead to a theoretically rate of displeasure as a high as 90%.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Fri Jul 30, 2010 7:06 am

Rarely done for GMOs. But I digress. :)
So you admit that it is done for medication and psychological methods?
Then where is the long-term study that shows that Zuckers method is not harmful?
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof and show it. Any responsible practitioner should do one when applying a new method on a large scale, yet i can not find a single one. Much less one done by an independent party.
And then why is it that despite your fears, you are not capable of linking both in showing that Zucker's method fails as much as the other treatment that seems the same?
All you're doing thus far is saying that it likely causes harm. As I said, it started in the mid 70s. It's about time we see some problems creeping up. There would be many patients going in their fourties, and possibly even more going into their thirties. Where's the evidence?
Yes, where is it?
The burden of proof is YOURS. If Zuckers doesn't publish any numbers, that's dubious, don't you think.
Besides, there ARE tons of negative accounts about Zucker and the rest of the Clarke center.
You have done precisely nothing. You have only made a comparison and you think it's about the same. You're not exactly more of an expert than Zucker is, and you're certainly not providing proof that Zucker's method fails so dramatically and is harmful, despite your repeated claims.
Time you bring serious evidence or drop it.
Ah, ignorance.
Do you know how ex-gay therapy works?
It's about enforcing stereotypical gender roles and teaching the children "how to be a man/woman". It's done by removing toys, limiting contact to the other gender (not disrupting it tough, you need sex after all) and suppressing "feminine behavior" in boys or "dominant behavior" in girls.
Guess what Zuckers method is all about.
It's about enforcing stereotypical gender roles and teaching the children "how to be a man/woman". It's done by removing toys, limiting contact to the "other" gender (often completely, the only difference so far) and suppressing "feminine behavior" in boys or "dominant behavior" in girls.
That's it! That's Zuckers method. Much of his method has been copied by ex-gay organizations. And then declared harmful by the APA.
There IS a huge similarity, if they are not identical.
I guess that makes her an ignorant, intolerant bigot the days when her mood swings towards the he's side.
No. You are a bigot if you try to dictate the behavior of others when it does them harm. Which is stunningly similar to Zucker and his advocates (including you).
Go buy a dictionary.
It also even presents conflicting "facts" such as "brain-imaging studies show that the brains of gender-atypical people are larger and more complex than those of gender-rigid people."
You read that.
Where? How about linking any studies, WILGA? Oops, sorry, Kor - when did you start arguing in favor of Hijra? Oops, sorry, Oraghan - when did you start arguing like Kor?

So you mean that on the 500 patients he treated, the 80% he claims to be successes are actually people living a dreadful life in a way or another?
Quite possibly, yes. Oh, not necessarily completely miserable - but how is teaching children to generally suppress their feelings a good thing?
And how come so few, if literally none thus far, have come out to say how their life turned to shit since those years at the clinic.
Ah, because people can always track their problems back to their childhood completely on their own.
Their parents would be happy after the clinic - they now have a "strong, male boy instead of a disgusting sissy". They won't see much wrong with it.
And later on, they will just turn into the bog-standard no-actual-emotions adult. You know, those parents who are utterly incapable of dealing with most of the emotions of their children because they can't handle emotions in general.
I mean, come on, these people know the Internet. With everything we find on Internet, from bullshit about aliens to reptilians and so on, don't you think the utter lack of people complaining about the Zucker treatment they underwent isn't already a clue or something a bit more conclusive than the groups shouting it's bad, it's harmful?
How about actually looking for accounts? I already linked some, they are hardly positive.

He observes the severe cases of GID.
Buswah. The mild cases will not visit the clinic in the first place. And yes, he might select the 10% fairly. But if he has ANY selection criteria, he can NOT claim that his studies apply to transsexual people in general. In order to do that, he has to look at transsexual people in general, not just a selected few.
That said, not being obtuse, I agree that a clarification would be needed.
Yes. And there isn't any. No study by any independent party.
1. the expression of an ill conceived brain. Remember what we said about that?
Yes, you think that transsexual people in general are insane (if this is not a sockpuppet post). Without any evidence of course, purely based on prejudice.
2. nothing's perfect. Also, see the relevance of budget limits due to insurances, as pointed above, which can stop treatments earlier.
Got any proof for these limits?
Because the Canadian health system is not that bad.
3. which in the case of the 80%, is a very positive point.
Oh, what ignorance. Even if we take the 80% at face value (and i don't), then he is still potential ruining the life of the remaining 20%.
But of course, you don't care about the happiness of transsexual people, you already made that abundantly clear.
That said, I agree that I would not advocate for it blindly without further material to look at. The problem is that the ostracism is not helping him getting very vocal about what's going on.
More bullshit. He is well accepted within the APA. He is not ostracized there.
And even if he was, that would only provoke independent studies. Of course, he is hogging his data so independent verification is very hard, and most likely doesn't get the necessary funds because he is well-accepted.
1. See above.
2. In children? What do you mean?
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.
They are children. He reinforces harmful behavior (suppression of emotions) in them.
And it's nice to see that you agree that his method is brutal and most likely inefficient.
Could you please be more specific about the portion we should look at? The only bit mentions a ratio identical to the one you speak of seems to say something else entirely.
Hmm. Perhaps that was the wrong link. Let me look for it again.

And it means that the vast majority of post-op people who are happy about it is because they've been filtered before the operation from the people, with only 10% of greenlights.
Which actually means that a total leeway, a laissez-faire about the way a person feels about his or her gender, could lead to a theoretically rate of displeasure as a high as 90%.
Guess what. PROPER screening is done in the methods who are actually humane and internationally accepted, too.
There are lot's of accounts of people who get rejected at the Clarke center and still had SRS AND are happy. Your figure is as much a piece of crap as those before - because it is purely based on the unverified claims of Zucker&Co.


Come on. Show some proof that Zuckers method has been independently verified and has been shown not to be harmful. Heck, you did not even post any studies by Zucker - you are still appealing to his authority.
Without such proof, you argument is just that - an appeal to authority.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sat Jul 31, 2010 1:29 am

Serafina wrote:
Rarely done for GMOs. But I digress. :)
So you admit that it is done for medication and psychological methods?
Then where is the long-term study that shows that Zuckers method is not harmful?
Stop trying to shift the burden of proof and show it. Any responsible practitioner should do one when applying a new method on a large scale, yet i can not find a single one. Much less one done by an independent party.
And then why is it that despite your fears, you are not capable of linking both in showing that Zucker's method fails as much as the other treatment that seems the same?
All you're doing thus far is saying that it likely causes harm. As I said, it started in the mid 70s. It's about time we see some problems creeping up. There would be many patients going in their fourties, and possibly even more going into their thirties. Where's the evidence?
Yes, where is it?
The burden of proof is YOURS. If Zuckers doesn't publish any numbers, that's dubious, don't you think.
Besides, there ARE tons of negative accounts about Zucker and the rest of the Clarke center.
You have done precisely nothing. You have only made a comparison and you think it's about the same. You're not exactly more of an expert than Zucker is, and you're certainly not providing proof that Zucker's method fails so dramatically and is harmful, despite your repeated claims.
Time you bring serious evidence or drop it.
Ah, ignorance.
Do you know how ex-gay therapy works?
It's about enforcing stereotypical gender roles and teaching the children "how to be a man/woman". It's done by removing toys, limiting contact to the other gender (not disrupting it tough, you need sex after all) and suppressing "feminine behavior" in boys or "dominant behavior" in girls.
Guess what Zuckers method is all about.
It's about enforcing stereotypical gender roles and teaching the children "how to be a man/woman". It's done by removing toys, limiting contact to the "other" gender (often completely, the only difference so far) and suppressing "feminine behavior" in boys or "dominant behavior" in girls.
That's it! That's Zuckers method. Much of his method has been copied by ex-gay organizations. And then declared harmful by the APA.
There IS a huge similarity, if they are not identical.
I guess that makes her an ignorant, intolerant bigot the days when her mood swings towards the he's side.
No. You are a bigot if you try to dictate the behavior of others when it does them harm. Which is stunningly similar to Zucker and his advocates (including you).
Go buy a dictionary.
It also even presents conflicting "facts" such as "brain-imaging studies show that the brains of gender-atypical people are larger and more complex than those of gender-rigid people."
You read that.
Where? How about linking any studies, WILGA? Oops, sorry, Kor - when did you start arguing in favor of Hijra? Oops, sorry, Oraghan - when did you start arguing like Kor?

So you mean that on the 500 patients he treated, the 80% he claims to be successes are actually people living a dreadful life in a way or another?
Quite possibly, yes. Oh, not necessarily completely miserable - but how is teaching children to generally suppress their feelings a good thing?
And how come so few, if literally none thus far, have come out to say how their life turned to shit since those years at the clinic.
Ah, because people can always track their problems back to their childhood completely on their own.
Their parents would be happy after the clinic - they now have a "strong, male boy instead of a disgusting sissy". They won't see much wrong with it.
And later on, they will just turn into the bog-standard no-actual-emotions adult. You know, those parents who are utterly incapable of dealing with most of the emotions of their children because they can't handle emotions in general.
I mean, come on, these people know the Internet. With everything we find on Internet, from bullshit about aliens to reptilians and so on, don't you think the utter lack of people complaining about the Zucker treatment they underwent isn't already a clue or something a bit more conclusive than the groups shouting it's bad, it's harmful?
How about actually looking for accounts? I already linked some, they are hardly positive.

He observes the severe cases of GID.
Buswah. The mild cases will not visit the clinic in the first place. And yes, he might select the 10% fairly. But if he has ANY selection criteria, he can NOT claim that his studies apply to transsexual people in general. In order to do that, he has to look at transsexual people in general, not just a selected few.
That said, not being obtuse, I agree that a clarification would be needed.
Yes. And there isn't any. No study by any independent party.
1. the expression of an ill conceived brain. Remember what we said about that?
Yes, you think that transsexual people in general are insane (if this is not a sockpuppet post). Without any evidence of course, purely based on prejudice.
2. nothing's perfect. Also, see the relevance of budget limits due to insurances, as pointed above, which can stop treatments earlier.
Got any proof for these limits?
Because the Canadian health system is not that bad.
3. which in the case of the 80%, is a very positive point.
Oh, what ignorance. Even if we take the 80% at face value (and i don't), then he is still potential ruining the life of the remaining 20%.
But of course, you don't care about the happiness of transsexual people, you already made that abundantly clear.
That said, I agree that I would not advocate for it blindly without further material to look at. The problem is that the ostracism is not helping him getting very vocal about what's going on.
More bullshit. He is well accepted within the APA. He is not ostracized there.
And even if he was, that would only provoke independent studies. Of course, he is hogging his data so independent verification is very hard, and most likely doesn't get the necessary funds because he is well-accepted.
1. See above.
2. In children? What do you mean?
3. Agreed.
4. Agreed.
They are children. He reinforces harmful behavior (suppression of emotions) in them.
And it's nice to see that you agree that his method is brutal and most likely inefficient.
Could you please be more specific about the portion we should look at? The only bit mentions a ratio identical to the one you speak of seems to say something else entirely.
Hmm. Perhaps that was the wrong link. Let me look for it again.

And it means that the vast majority of post-op people who are happy about it is because they've been filtered before the operation from the people, with only 10% of greenlights.
Which actually means that a total leeway, a laissez-faire about the way a person feels about his or her gender, could lead to a theoretically rate of displeasure as a high as 90%.
Guess what. PROPER screening is done in the methods who are actually humane and internationally accepted, too.
There are lot's of accounts of people who get rejected at the Clarke center and still had SRS AND are happy. Your figure is as much a piece of crap as those before - because it is purely based on the unverified claims of Zucker&Co.


Come on. Show some proof that Zuckers method has been independently verified and has been shown not to be harmful. Heck, you did not even post any studies by Zucker - you are still appealing to his authority.
Without such proof, you argument is just that - an appeal to authority.
There's nothing really intelligent in your post. I don't need to make an appeal to authority because I never claimed it was necessarily reliable to begin with, or even the way to go. I merely looked at your claims and pointed out the logical errors in them, that's all.
You do have a problem with logic though. A strong one. Besides, you're not reading my points properly, you're asking for evidence I already provided from sources which even happen to attack the primitive/dark age methods of Zucker and co. (example; insurances forcing a treatment prematurely) but for some reason even those aren't good enough if they tend to mitigate the criticism against anything you don't like. I cite the articles I linked to. The info is there. Not my fault if you can't read. Pulled by the momentum of your narrow mind, you even manage to rhetorically loop on yourself and pile contradiction after contradiction, isolate yourself by insulting pretty much anyone including entire pans of the TS community, erase entire sections of your memory to the point or forgetting what I already said about the Hijra and my other alternative solutions which had nothing to do with treatments, and even espouse the most asinine positions only for the sake of winning an argument or trying to paint me in the most dreadful light ever. The Joe Pesci and Lincoln-wannabe nutcase examples finely proved that, just as your desperate accusation of suck puppetry did. There's just a big problem with you, is that you simply can't let it go. You've grown an obsession, and it's both worrying and laughable. I'll let you deal with it, for the sake of my own sanity, and wish you a great deal of lullabies and good luck. I'm done with your silliness. ;)

PS: and perhaps one day you could actually defend your claims regarding Star Trek and Star Wars, something you got away with rather conveniently with your red herring.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sat Jul 31, 2010 7:33 am

You do have a problem with logic though. A strong one. Besides, you're not reading my points properly, you're asking for evidence I already provided from sources which even happen to attack the primitive/dark age methods of Zucker and co. (example; insurances forcing a treatment prematurely) but for some reason even those aren't good enough if they tend to mitigate the criticism against anything you don't like.
I want scientific sources.
Not some news report or insurance company - scientific ones.
And i don't think you posted ANY scientific sources. Your (or Kor) did not even link or quote any of Zuckers own papers. That's why your argument was a pure appeal to authority, you were not arguing with science but with Zuckers authority.
I cite the articles I linked to. The info is there. Not my fault if you can't read. Pulled by the momentum of your narrow mind, you even manage to rhetorically loop on yourself and pile contradiction after contradiction, isolate yourself by insulting pretty much anyone including entire pans of the TS community, erase entire sections of your memory to the point or forgetting what I already said about the Hijra and my other alternative solutions which had nothing to do with treatments, and even espouse the most asinine positions only for the sake of winning an argument or trying to paint me in the most dreadful light ever.
Only in your mind.
Then again, your position right from the start was that my mind is diseased and that i am insane.
The Joe Pesci and Lincoln-wannabe nutcase examples finely proved that, just as your desperate accusation of suck puppetry did.
Still harping on that, eh?
Which justs shows that you are incapable of informing yourself about transsexuality. Someone can physically look as male as possible and still be a transwomen before transition. You are merely so prejudiced towards physical appearance that you can't grasp this. And then go on claiming that every single transperson is insane.
And that's not bigotry how again?
PS: and perhaps one day you could actually defend your claims regarding Star Trek and Star Wars, something you got away with rather conveniently with your red herring.
Oh, so defending myself against prejudiced, ignorant people is a red herring now?


Come on now. You don't have an argument anymore. Your dropped your previous drivel about "transwomen do not look female and are therefore insane" (well, mostly) because everyone could see how prejudiced that was.
You then attempted to uses Kors Zucker-drivel, but you do not provide any scientific evidence - because there isn't any.
So instead you devolve into appeals to authorities and ad hominem based on your prejudice. And red herrings, because the Vs.-discussion is by itself a red herring here.

Kor_Dahar_Master
Starship Captain
Posts: 1246
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:40 pm


Mr. Oragahn (or me if the sockpuppet claim is true) i read your points and found them extremely insightful as per usual.


Anyway i can see this topic going nowhere so il just post the simple facts, conclusions and my ultimate perspective from the discussion and leave it at that.


THE FEMALE BRAIN IN A MALE BODY DESIRE.

The evidence AGAINST MTF transgenders having a female brain from or prior to birth is overwhelming, a unfortunate fact for those who wish it to be otherwise so much that they make claims saying so over and over as seen below.
Serafina wrote: Scientific studies also suggest that transwomen have female brains.

These studies are pretty clear - the brain simply developed female.


This is one fine example of this - identity is essentially defined by the brain, and a transwomans brain is simply female.

Not only do we know from MRI brain scans how female brains are structured differantly from male brains and that MTF do not have female structured brains but male ones, but we also know that prolonged use of hormone treatment does cause changes in MTF transgender brains TOWARDS a more female structure.

These two facts cleary show that they were not female brains in the first place, firstly by the scan showing so and secondly by the fact that the drugs could not change the structure towards female if they were female in the first place rather than male.


HOWEVER


We do have indications that a small area of the transgender brain may have a anomoly that may effect it early in development, but given the way and amount the brain develops afterwards there is no way it could be interpreted as a female brain or even close to one.


Referances and links to the studies are available in this thread and have been discussed.



GID TEENS/ADULTS
Any viewpoint which argues for inevitability for any trait without regard for the environment, is trying to turn the clock back and has a very large burden of proof because of the known dual influences, nature and nurture, which exist for all human actions. In addition to these two factors there is a third, chance, which is underappreciated, and in many cases predominant. This may be chance occurrences which have a profound influence, or highly individualistic responses to influences, which rarely would react that way on others.
NOTE:
I shall not go into the addictive qualities of the drugs taken by transgenders at this time or the possible repercussions of such effects on the opinions/desires of those taking them over a short or long term.




While the treatment of older individuals claiming to be transgender is problematic in and of itself due to what is known to the psychological community as the "Feminine Essence Narrative", a construct of imaginative stories created by transgenders in order to fit the criteria for SRS surgery once the medical community published its guidelines.




However in 2008, the Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard presented the idea in the form of a theory in a commentary entitled "Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative" wherein he lists what he considers to be "the central tenets of the feminine essence theory", and then refutes each of his tenets:
1. Male-to-female transsexuals are, in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense, women inside men’s bodies.
2. There is only one type of woman, therefore there can be only one type of (true) male-to-female transsexual.
3. Apparent differences among male-to-female transsexuals are relatively superficial and irrelevant to the basic unity of the transsexual syndrome.
4. Male-to-female transsexuals have no unique, behavioral or psychological characteristics that are absent in typical men and women.

Ray Blanchard immediatly became the target for hate mail and abuse by individuals within the transgender community for pointing these facts out, however his qualifications speak for themselves:
He received his A.B. in psychology from the University of Pennsylvania in 1967 and his Ph.D. from the University of Illinois in 1973.

He conducted postdoctoral research at Dalhousie University until 1976, when he accepted a position as a clinical psychologist at the Ontario Correctional Institute in Brampton, Ontario, Canada (a suburb of Toronto).

There, Blanchard met Kurt Freund, who became his mentor. Freund was conducting research in chemical castration for sex offenders.

In 1980, he joined the Clarke Institute of Psychiatry (now part of the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health).

In 1995 Blanchard was named Head of Clinical Sexology Services in the Law and Mental Health Programme of the CAMH, and he serves as a Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Toronto.

He served on the American Psychiatric Association DSM-IV Subcommittee on Gender Identity Disorders and was named to the DSM-5 committee.

According to the Web of Science, Blanchard's scientific articles have been cited more than 1800 times, with an h-index of 27.


GID CHILDREN



Highly successful cures for GID children have been recorded by some of the worlds most renowned sexologists and psycologists.

Dr. Kenneth Zucker.
A Jewish American-Canadian psychologist and sexologist, and head of the child and adolescent gender identity clinic at Toronto's Centre for Addiction and Mental Health. Based on his collaboration with Susan Bradley.

Zucker is considered an international authority in the field of gender identity disorder in children (GDIC) and in adolescents. His clinic has probably diagnosed more GDIC than any other facility in the world.

Zucker is also a Professor with the Departments of Psychiatry and Psychology at the University of Toronto.

He was named editor-in-chief of Archives of Sexual Behavior in 2001.

In 2007 Zucker was chosen to be a member of the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions, and in 2008 was named chair of the American Psychiatric Association workgroup on "Sexual and Gender Identity Disorders" for the 2012 edition of the DSM-5.

He previously served on workgroups for the DSM-IV and the DSM-IV-TR.
Dr. Kenneth Zucker has reported success rates of 80-90% in GID children and has treated over 500 preadolescent gender-variant children over the last 30 years.

However again instead of being met by happy inquiry by the transgender community he has met only abuse and even accusations of child abuse and harm.
In May 2008, 11,000+ people signed a petition (9000 electronically, 2000 paper) to the American Psychiatric Association asking that Kenneth Zucker be removed from the DSM process because of his support of reparative therapy on children and because of allegedly falsified research data.

The APA refused to even receive such a absurd petition, let alone act on it.
As can be personally testified to on this very board some even go so far as to accuse the APA and other governing bodies of the psycological community of ignoring Dr. Kenneth Zucker's alledged child abuse or even supporting it because of personal friendships.........mainly in order to discredit his qualifications and promotions gained BECAUSE of his fine work helping GID children and others in that area of study.

I have to say on a personal note that such tactics concern me, to claim that the higher levels of the medical community either ignores or supports child abuse is a paranoia of extreme levels, or to make such a horrid accusation out of rage because of a dislike of the results that ultimatly help these children speaks volumes.



Environmental influence

Studies also show influence of the environment ver much supporting the Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Blanchard position.
(Bosinski et al. 1997a; Bosinski et al. 1997b) in ftm subjects found a quite exceptional frequency of non-classical congenital adrenal hyperplasia, poly-cystic ovarian syndrome, and hirsutism. There is the obviously possibility that awareness of these medical conditions influenced the subjects’ thinking.

(Glover et al. 2009) developed a model of sexual orientation development using GLBT subjects. This in some way tried to explain the transgender people’s “orientation”, particularly by including sexual experiences in their history. This suggested some environmental factors are also involved.

(Levine and Solomon, 2009) Noted that transgender mtf people seemed to have lots of feelings. The theory advanced was that men with lots of feelings might observe this in themselves, observe it seemed rather typical of women, hence think they are women trapped in a man’s body.

(Daskalos, 1998) and (Weyers et al. 2008) commented on the very sudden change of sexual orientation frequently reported by transgender people after treatment is commenced. In view of the alleged difficulty of changing sexual orientation in general, this seemed very unlikely, and argued at least a strong influence of environmental factors, and similarly the stability of the sexual identity comes into question.


CONCLUSIONS

I started this discussion with the opinion that if you wanna be a woman then chop it off and hasve done with it as long as you are not hurting anybody. However while my personal code regarding that philosophy in all things has not changed my opinion of it doing harm has.

I have seen that the traditional science, the psychology and other issues show clearly that supporting it could be and likely is perpetuating the sufferng of those who could be treated at a early age.

By supporting it i am also supporting those who think that doctors at the highest levels of their profession AND the governing boards are perposfully harming children in some sort of cover up, either because of severe paranoia or because of sheer loathing that their "WISH" to be "essentially female" is clearly refuted.

This thread and the vast amount of research i have done has opened my eyes to a real concern regarding it and some of the individuals trying to gain support for hate campaigns against the medical community that is trying to help them.


Mr. Oragahn,

I hope you have at least got a clearer picture from this thread, i am now done with it, my position is clear as are the facts and results.
Last edited by Kor_Dahar_Master on Sun Aug 01, 2010 8:34 am, edited 1 time in total.

Serafina
Bridge Officer
Posts: 188
Joined: Mon Aug 31, 2015 8:28 pm

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sat Jul 31, 2010 11:26 pm

The evidence AGAINST MTF transgenders having a female brain from or prior to birth is overwhelming, a unfortunate fact for those who wish it to be otherwise so much.
It is hardly overwhelming against the theory that they have a female gender identity.
The "female brain" part is just a strawman, since that was never my argument.
Rather, in case you need help reading it, my argument was that the female gender identity is established from birth as it is established in ciswomen. A transwoman is hence a woman from birth.
We know that gender identity can not be changed by nurture. It has been tried and always failed.
We also do not yet know what parts of the brain establish gender identity. Transsexuality is actually a great way to find this out. But the fact that we do not yet know can NOT be used to declare that we DO know that a transwoman does not have a female gender identity from birth. It's really obvious - you can not use something you do not know to claim that you do know something.
Not only do we know from MRI brain scans how female brains are structured differantly from male brains and that MTF do not have female structured brains but male ones, but we also know that prolonged use of hormone treatment does cause changes in MTF transgender brains TOWARDS a more female structure.

These two facts cleary show that they were not female brains in the first place, firstly by the scan showing so and secondly by the fact that the drugs could not change the structure towards female if they were female in the first place rather than male.
And again, a strawman.
Because i have not been arguing about structure etc., but about gender identity. We do not have yet conclusive evidence on that yet, you agreed on that earlier. Forgetting this now is simply dishonest.

We do have indications that a small area of the transgender brain may have a anomoly that may effect it early in development, but given the way and amount the brain develops afterwards there is no way it could be interpreted as a female brain or even close to one.
And we have the same strawman again.
If gender identity is established by only a small part of the brain (and it has to be, since many typically male/female structures develop later in life - yet gender identity doesn't change), then that "anomaly" could very well be the seat of it.
The rest of the structure doesn't matter. We also have many ciswomen who have partially male brains and have a perfectly female gender identity - these structures are NOT relevant for gender identity.


Overall, Kor is trying to use lack of knowledge as evidence. This is simply dishonest and unscientific. We can not yet conclude the gender identity of a newborn by it's brain, because we do not yet know how gender identity is defined in the brain.
So you can NOT determine that a transwoman is born with a male gender identity, nor can you determine the opposite.


NOTE:
I shall not go into the addictive qualities of the drugs taken by transgenders at this time or the possible repercussions of such effects on the opinions/desires of those taking them over a short or long term.
Yes, because that claim is entirely phony. The estrogen is take is functionally identical to natural estrogen, it has the same effects. All side effects would also happen in a ciswoman who suddenly looses her estrogen. In fact, that happens all the time, albeit more slowly, during the menopause and similarly during their period.
While the treatment of older individuals claiming to be transgender is problematic in and of itself due to what is known to the psychological community as the "Feminine Essence Narrative", a construct of imaginative stories created by transgenders in order to fit the criteria for SRS surgery once the medical community published its guidelines.
And again, you are claiming that all transwomen are liars.
Of course, you do not have any evidence that this is a majority case, rather than just inflexible psychologist who want to be told an exact story. This exact story is not necessary for a diagnosis at all.
However in 2008, the Canadian sexologist Ray Blanchard presented the idea in the form of a theory in a commentary entitled "Deconstructing the Feminine Essence Narrative" wherein he lists what he considers to be "the central tenets of the feminine essence theory", and then refutes each of his tenets:
1. Male-to-female transsexuals are, in some literal sense and not just in a figurative sense, women inside men’s bodies.
2. There is only one type of woman, therefore there can be only one type of (true) male-to-female transsexual.
3. Apparent differences among male-to-female transsexuals are relatively superficial and irrelevant to the basic unity of the transsexual syndrome.
4. Male-to-female transsexuals have no unique, behavioral or psychological characteristics that are absent in typical men and women.
This is not what the actually internationally accepted theory of transsexuality is about (as opposed to Blanchards phony Autogynophila-theory).
1: Is supported by neurological evidence, albeit not yet conclusive one
2: Of course there is. And then there are sub-categories. But being in a sub-category doesn't make you more or less a member of the main category.
Any other theory would require that transwomen fit into a specific sub-category. This was the case until not too long ago, where transwomen had to fit the straight, submissive housewife stereotype. This is also the case with Blanchards own theory, which has only two types of transwomen (and declares that one is not a real transwoman).
3: Again, sub- and main categories. It's really not that difficult of a concept.
4: And since he provides no proof that there IS such a behavior, that is an entirely pointless claim (autogynophilia is also present in some ciswomen).
Ray Blanchard immediatly became the target for hate mail and abuse by individuals within the transgender community for pointing these facts out, however his qualifications speak for themselves:
An appeal to authority. Science has always to be open to criticism, you can not shut it out by appealing to authority.
Generally, Blanchard REJECTED transwomen who did not display autogynophilia. He did not include them into his studies, and told some of them that they are not transsexual at all. His diagnostic method for transsexuality was SOLEY focussed on sexuality (rather than gender identity).
His theory does not have international acceptance, it is only accepted in northern America.


Highly successful cures for GID children have been recorded by some of the worlds most renowned sexologists and psycologists.
You are now ignoring all the criticism that makes it very unlikely that they are a cure, highly successful or non-damaging.
Dr. Kenneth Zucker has reported success rates of 80-90% in GID children and has treated over 500 preadolescent gender-variant children over the last 30 years.
The success rate is phony since it does not include long-term observations. Suppression of transsexuality is the more likely result, since it already has loads of evidence and an observed mechanism.
However again instead of being met by happy inquiry by the transgender community he has met only abuse and even accusations of child abuse and harm.
Perhaps because his method is known to be harmful?
Perhaps because his claims are contradicting the experience of most transwomen?
Perhaps because he ignores actual theories of gender formation?
As can be personally testified to on this very board some even go so far as to accuse the APA and other governing bodies of the psycological community of ignoring Dr. Kenneth Zucker's alledged child abuse or even supporting it because of personal friendships.........mainly in order to discredit his qualifications and promotions gained BECAUSE of his fine work helping GID children and others in that area of study.
Gee, an organisation is ignoring something one of his leading members does? How very unlikely!
Again, the APA is the ONLY place where Zucker is accepted. He is not accepted in Europe or other parts of the world.
I have to say on a personal note that such tactics concern me, to claim that the higher levels of the medical community either ignores or supports child abuse is a paranoia of extreme levels, or to make such a horrid accusation out of rage because of a dislike of the results that ultimatly help these children speaks volumes.
And I am concerned about people who accept the work of a single scientist that has never been independently verified and that is likely to be harmful without questioning it.
Studies also show influence of the environment ver much supporting the Dr. Kenneth Zucker and Blanchard position.
And again, not independently verified by anyone outside of the Clarke Institute.

I started this discussion with the opinion that if you wanna be a woman then chop it off and hasve done with it as long as you are not hurting anybody. However while my personal code regarding that philosophy in all things has not changed my opinion of it doing harm has.
In other words, you started off with an ignorant yet sensible prejudice.
I have seen that the traditional science, the psychology and other issues show clearly that supporting it could be and likely is perpetuating the sufferng of those who could be treated at a early age.
Ooh, "traditional science". As opposed to...what exactly? Oh, right - phony, non-verified science by Zucker.
By supporting it i am also supporting those who think that doctors at the highest levels of their profession AND the governing boards are perposfully harming children in some sort of cover up, either because of severe paranoia or because of sheer loathing that their "WISH" to be "essentially female" is clearly refuted.
Another appeal to authority. How about some independent studies?
This thread and the vast amount of research i have done has opened my eyes to a real concern regarding it and some of the individuals trying to gain support for hate campaigns against the medical community that is trying to help them.
Ooh, hate campaigns against the entire medical community.
You are wrong. If there is any hate, it is directed toward a very specific part of the APA - mostly the Clarke Institute. Given that they are likely to traumatize children for life, that is hardly unjustified.




Your supposed facts are just repeats of your already debunked claims. You ignored all of my replies.
You do NOT present any independent verification of Zuckers results. Of, course, there aren't any, so you can't. But in science, a theory can only be well-accepted if it is independently verified. The more often this is done, the more accepted it becomes.
Yet Zuckers theory is not verified by anyone not working at the same institute as himself.
Similar institutes exist in Europe (e.g. the Netherlands, Switzerland and IIRC France and GB), yet they do not find anything that Zucker does. Indeed, they find the exact opposite - and they DO have independent verification.

Zuckers results can not be reproduced by anyone. That means they are likely to be phony.
His claimed successes are entirely unproven even by himself, since he does no long-term observation. Children are very impressible by behavioral therapy, you can induce pretty much anything into them and it will work for several months or years even without reinforcement. But it is not necessarily a real change.
His method is identical to anti-gay therapies. Yet he has never shown that he does no harm to these children, he does not even monitor it on a short-term basis.

In other words, his work is unconfirmed and incomplete.
The only reason you accept it is because you have no idea of the workings of actual science and because you want to have a justification for your discrimination against transwomen.


Present independent studies about Zuckers work, otherwise you are only appealing to authority.

Jedi Master Spock
Site Admin
Posts: 2164
Joined: Mon Aug 14, 2006 8:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Transreality

Post by Jedi Master Spock » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:32 am

Serafina wrote:The "female brain" part is just a strawman, since that was never my argument.
Never?

Let's talk for a minute about Zucker and the structure of your argument, again. First, when you say Zucker is a hack, you're falling into the exact same trap you fell into with Blanchard. Zucker may be controversial within the trans community, but he's a darling of the medical establishment and pretty prominent within the literature. Ad hominem is just a bad choice of argument. Concentrate instead on substance.

So here's substance. What Zucker's "therapy" amounts to is classical conditioning. Classical conditioning generally works. The fact that it doesn't work particularly well with regard to sexuality is interesting and generally taken as a demonstration that sexuality is intrinsic. When you say that transsexuality is intrinsic, arguments such as Zucker's are directly an attack on that claim. Responding to them by saying that transsexuality is intrinsic and therefore unalterable by such therapies is putting the cart before the horse. This is a bad way to address Zucker's claim. What's needed instead is evidence on whether or not his methods work. You've claimed such evidence is totally lacking.

Instead, you should have actually read his papers. A good way to address Zucker's claim of clinical success is to point to the fact that his reported outcomes really don't authoritatively show anything regarding persistence of GID into adulthood. There have been several other studies reporting in particular on feminine-acting boys' adult outcomes. Zucker (in 1995) reported 80% success out of 40 cases that he followed up on. His summary of others' outcomes (also in 1995) - six follow-up reports from other authors on a total of 55 boys exhibiting GID showed 5 adult transsexuals - with 13 that "could not be rated" (or perhaps were not rated in those follow-up reports).

Other studies have not shown significantly higher persistence than Zucker. In fact, some have shown lower rates of childhood GID persisting to adult transsexualism. The evidence was sitting there right in front of you to address Zucker's claimed success rate - if you were willing to actually read what Zucker had written.
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Like, what? 1 out of 1000?
Seems like a typical case of an exception that proves the rule.
Yes, about 1 in 1000 is around the rate for a given chromosomal abnormality. About 1% can be classed as intersex for one or another reason. About 1 in 1000 are surgically "clarified" at birth.

So this is rare. But for these individuals, we don't employ a chromosomal test to assign which gender they "ought" to be. Instead, we can and do base their social gender identity on what's going to work and what surgery has made of them. We decide, in other words, based largely on cosmetic appearance. And cosmetic appearance can be quite completely changed.

And while rare, transsexuality is if anything rarer. However you draw up your criterion for biological invariant gender essences, it's most likely that the majority of people on the "wrong" side will be there due to biological ambiguities, and quite a few won't necessarily be aware of that. Conversely, when we're judging by clothed appearance and behavior, probably a majority of women that you think look suspiciously masculine are unambiguously biologically female - they just happen to be on the masculine end of the bell curve.

User avatar
Mr. Oragahn
Admiral
Posts: 6865
Joined: Sun Dec 03, 2006 11:58 am
Location: Paradise Mountain

Re: Transreality

Post by Mr. Oragahn » Sun Aug 08, 2010 1:39 am

Jedi Master Spock wrote:
Mr. Oragahn wrote:Like, what? 1 out of 1000?
Seems like a typical case of an exception that proves the rule.
Yes, about 1 in 1000 is around the rate for a given chromosomal abnormality. About 1% can be classed as intersex for one or another reason. About 1 in 1000 are surgically "clarified" at birth.

So this is rare. But for these individuals, we don't employ a chromosomal test to assign which gender they "ought" to be. Instead, we can and do base their social gender identity on what's going to work and what surgery has made of them. We decide, in other words, based largely on cosmetic appearance. And cosmetic appearance can be quite completely changed.
Cosmetic appearance is largely the first phase. Generally, for not really important matters, contrary to ethical or philosophical issues, we tend to limit ourselves to what's simple enough, to what is superficial and practical and yet what doesn't shock our views on the world, and the observation of the codes. Of course, as pointed out, you have more chances of being considered a woman in your daily life, with a passing interest, if you match enough critera, both about physiognomy, behaviour and dressing. But the topic never limited itself to that. You can have a Japanese male dressing up as a girl, wearing fake breasts and women clothes, enough make up and behaving like a woman, to pass as one. But this remain nothing more than superficial. Science doesn't stop there.
And while rare, transsexuality is if anything rarer. However you draw up your criterion for biological invariant gender essences, it's most likely that the majority of people on the "wrong" side will be there due to biological ambiguities, and quite a few won't necessarily be aware of that.
That they are aware or not is irrelevant. You can have a disease and not know it, or have a cancer. Your ignorance isn't powerful enough to trump reality though.
Conversely, when we're judging by clothed appearance and behavior, probably a majority of women that you think look suspiciously masculine are unambiguously biologically female - they just happen to be on the masculine end of the bell curve.
People naturally looking half way between both genders, without being particularly handsome, indeed tend to be hard to identify. This happens, for example, when you see someone on TV and you ask yourself "wait, is that person a woman?"
But then, again, this happens very rarely.
And obviously the members of the society, as a whole, don't seem to be bothered about trying to trump the opposite gender about their own true gender. Namely, the vast majority of women won't suddenly develop an odd interest in trying to pass off as men, and quite logically so: because there's no point doing so. And vice et versa. So you can safely consider that what looks like the majority of feminine codes will be followed by the immense majority, if not near totality of females.
The odd cases, again, are just that. Odd. Rare. They don't break the norm.

Post Reply