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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:45 am

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.
He is in North America. Not international. Which IS important.
Also, his findings are apparently NEVER confirmed independently (by someone outside of his own institute), which IS valid criticism. I never attacked the man himself, calling it an ad hominem is just wrong.
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.
I said that it is pure conditioning. I also said that it demonstrably doesn't work with regard to gender identity, a finding that is well demonstrated.
It is not my burden to prove that his method works. It's his and that of his advocates.
Not only does his own work lack proof of long-term success, but his work is not confirmed by anyone and contradicted by many.
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.
I skimmed them. For long-term observation and independent confirmation. I found nothing. Which is enough to make his claims phony.

I ALSO mentioned that his "success rates" could be completely unrelated to his "therapy" and just a natural phenomenon AND brutal oppression.


Besides, you got it completely backwards again. It is not my job to show his theories valid. Lack of independent confirmation is a serious problem when your work contradicts all other empirical studies. His studies have been out for quite a while, a number of independent institutes which are similar in general organization to the Clarke institute have existed for more than a decade. Yet no one could confirm his findings.
If you do not have serious doubts about any study with such standings, you are doing it wrong.
Again, it is not my job to provide evidence for their argument. They never did - they just screamed the name "Zucker" without linking or quoting his studies or showing independent research with equivalent results. They can't, because Zuckers theory is at best about a partial, miniscule fraction of transsexuality (or rather, seemingly similar phenomena) and at worst phony fringe-science. It is not the universal explanation for Transsexuality like them and Zucker claim.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sun Aug 08, 2010 6:56 am

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 again, ignorance.
Science has determined why that japanese male might want to dress up like that. If he has a male gender identity (which can be determined scientifically) he is just cross-dressing.
If she has a female gender identity (again, scientifically determinable) she is a transwoman.
Both are not necessarily related to chromosomes. Science doesn't stop looking at chromosomes tough - it looks at the actual personality. Which you are ignoring in order to focus on superficial and unrelated phenomena.
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?"
And this is completely unrelated to transsexuality. And again, most people will look closer and/or ask (often for a name, which is mostly gender-identifying). They will NOT make or demand a chromosome test.
Except bigots in the case of transsexual people. They will ask for all sorts of "proof" just in order to force conformity. Because they can't accept anything outside of their little world-view.
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.
And again, this is a red herring. And a non sequitur.
This is, of course, because the vast majority of people are not transsexual. But just because something is rare, you have NO RIGHTS to shove it under the rug. Which is exactly what you are trying to do "transsexuals are rare, therefore i can ignore them and be as rude as i like. You can not expect tolerance from me if something is rare".
How rare something is has nothing to do with how you deal with it. An individual person always deserves to be treated kindly and with dignity. You are not doing that with transsexual people, rather you are exceptionally rude and violate their dignity as often as possible.

Try to gobble up an actual argument. Then again, no one on your side of your wall has yet managed to do so - WILGA was arguing semantics and nitpicking, Kor was misrepresenting scientific discourse and you were appealing to fringe-"science" such as books that are written by a complete lay-person and never referenced anywhere else.

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 10:03 am

Serafina wrote:He is in North America. Not international. Which IS important.
Not particularly true or valid. Zucker co-authors across borders reasonably often. One of his frequent co-authors in the articles I read resides in the Netherlands. He has also exhibited an understanding that the transgender phenomenon may play out very differently in different cultural backgrounds.
Also, his findings are apparently NEVER confirmed independently (by someone outside of his own institute), which IS valid criticism. I never attacked the man himself, calling it an ad hominem is just wrong.
Really?
Serafina, earlier wrote:Kenneth Zucker?
You GOT to be kidding me. Unfortunately, you probably aren't.
You are advocating the opinion of that pet of the gay-reformation, "ex-gay" movement?
The guy whose "treatment" included severe punishment for boys if they play with girls, talk about girls, draw pictures of them etc.?

It's not like i needed more evidence for your hostile attitude towards transsexuality, but that you support that guy is more than enough.
"Pet of the gay reformation 'ex-gay' movement" is pretty far into ad hominem territory. (Especially when the fellow seems to be perfectly OK with homosexuality, from what I've read.)
Serafina, earlier wrote:Your claim that Zucker published "over a hundred publications'" is a LIE, according to Pubmed. Rather, he participated in 49 papers, and in most of them neither as first or second author.
Check Google Scholar. An author search for Zucker pulls up 355 hits - a number of them being books. There are a number of false positives, but claiming that he's participated in 49 papers is (a) an ad hominem attack ("Hey, this guy isn't such an expert! Look, he doesn't have that many papers!") and (b) a failure, since Pubmed is not comprehensive.

He's been involved in more than 49 peer-reviewed articles. He has been involved in more than 100 total publications when we add the books to the articles.
I said that it is pure conditioning. I also said that it demonstrably doesn't work with regard to gender identity, a finding that is well demonstrated.
Demonstrated by what? See, this is a positive claim you made here. You claimed that it doesn't work. If you want people to pay attention to it, you need to back it up.
It is not my burden to prove that his method works. It's his and that of his advocates.
What burden? Your opponent has brought up an expert who disagrees with you. If you want to convince, you need to address that expert.
Not only does his own work lack proof of long-term success, but his work is not confirmed by anyone and contradicted by many.
Contradicted by what many again?

See, you're making unsourced claims there again. I've reviewed your posts. You have yet to cite papers which contradict Zucker or imply that his method is a failure. This isn't to say that they don't exist (I linked to an overview article that discussed the rates at which childhood GID appears to persist into adulthood); you simply didn't cite them, refer to them, or in any fashion allude to their existence. Your "proof" amounted to re-stating your own model of transsexuality.
I skimmed them. For long-term observation and independent confirmation. I found nothing. Which is enough to make his claims phony.
By its very nature, studying whether childhood GID leads to adolescent and adult GID entails long-term observation. Also by its nature, peer review involves a certain level of scrutiny. And these are not the sort of things you are likely to evaluate well by skimming.
I ALSO mentioned that his "success rates" could be completely unrelated to his "therapy" and just a natural phenomenon AND brutal oppression.
And by blind luck, you happen to have hit on something that could be backed up by actual scientific studies, were you only to think to back up your claims. And as it so happens, I knew where to find the relevant articles that show that 20% persistence of GID is actually not a small rate. Green published a study in 1987 - cited in numerous of Zucker's papers - that shows a very low rate of adult transsexualism among boys who were feminine in childhood (a set which many authors have assumed would contain a large percentage of boys who would meet the modern diagnostic criteria for GID). Low, meaning that out of the entire sample of feminine-acting boys, only one was a transsexual as an adult.

Zucker explains the high rates of persistent GID among his patients as an expression of the fact that his clinic sees patients who express GID much more severely than the minimum required to meet the diagnostic criteria for GID. But the 20% persistence rate renders his "success" at preventing transsexuality in adults highly questionable - not because the persistence rate is a total unknown, but because other studies have if anything indicated that 20% is pretty high.
Besides, you got it completely backwards again. It is not my job to show his theories valid.
If you want to truly convince people, you're going to need to do more than throw out a volley of unsourced claims.
Lack of independent confirmation is a serious problem when your work contradicts all other empirical studies.
What other empirical studies did his work contradict?

You'll want to source that claim if you want to push it anywhere.
His studies have been out for quite a while, a number of independent institutes which are similar in general organization to the Clarke institute have existed for more than a decade. Yet no one could confirm his findings.
See, you keep confusing lack of independent confirmation with independent contradiction. And, incidentally, totally missed subsequent papers on that very topic.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:18 am

Serafina wrote:The "female brain" part is just a strawman, since that was never my argument.
REALLY?......
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.
The above are just a few direct statments and claims you made in this thread they have not been altered nor have they been deliberatly taken out of context...



Serafina wrote:He is in North America. Not international. Which IS important.
You complain about "appeals to authority" but your defense against him is that he does not have authority enough......lol.

Anyway the DSM is recognised worldwide and his position on it was directly earned because of hs works and successes in this field.

It is not my burden to prove that his method works. It's his and that of his advocates.
Not only does his own work lack proof of long-term success, but his work is not confirmed by anyone and contradicted by many.
It is not contradicted by many.

You created a huge slippery slope strawman where you "claimed" his treatment was totally identical to some ex-gay therapy methods and because they did not work therefore his does not.
I skimmed them. For long-term observation and independent confirmation. I found nothing. Which is enough to make his claims phony.
So you skimmed the reports found nothing and as such you decided to give his work the result of phony?.

And if independant proof can be posted here just who does it need to be from for you to accept it?, because if i post some i do not want you to construct yet another strawman or denial after you have been proven wrong yet again.................lets face it you will not accept any report from anybody ever concerning this subject unless it agrees with you.
I ALSO mentioned that his "success rates" could be completely unrelated to his "therapy" and just a natural phenomenon AND brutal oppression.
Handwave + accusations of child abuse.....

The gay community and others made a petition regarding Dr zucker it made direct "CLAIMS" just like you do about him falsifying his reports ect, the APA found it so absurd they refused to even recognise it and accept it.


CONCLUSION.

1. You have lied about your direct and well documented claim regarding transgenders having female brains and accused myself and others of creating strawmen when we pointed it out.

2. You claim our stance on Dr Zucker is a "appeal to authority" and your reply is that it is not enough authority even though his position gained from his work is recognised internationally.

3. YOU created a strawman argument regarding some gay therapies and then claimed that because the gay therapies did not work nor did Dr Zuckers, the proof you claim to have is ALL from the gay studies and NONE of it is directly related or from Dr Zuckers work.

4. You clearly say you skimmed and did not read his results properly ect but then go on to make claims about child abuse, falsifying study results and earlier in the thread attack the DSM board and accuse them of a conspiracy.

5. You go on to make a handwave claim of insider knowledge on his patients and his sucesses and couple it with a accusation of child abuse.....a tactic that has been tried before by the gay commynity and others and was treated with utter contempt and disregard by the APA.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:34 am

Really?
Yes, really.
The quoted part was not my main argument.
Check Google Scholar. An author search for Zucker pulls up 355 hits - a number of them being books. There are a number of false positives, but claiming that he's participated in 49 papers is (a) an ad hominem attack ("Hey, this guy isn't such an expert! Look, he doesn't have that many papers!") and (b) a failure, since Pubmed is not comprehensive.
No, this is not an ad hominem attack. It is merely a debunking of Kors/Oraghans appeal to his authority. Their claim, not mine.
Demonstrated by what? See, this is a positive claim you made here. You claimed that it doesn't work. If you want people to pay attention to it, you need to back it up.
Wait, i thought your had no rules of evidence here? Oh, right, selective application, my bad.
I already referred to David Reimer and similar cases. Conditioning doesn't change gender identity, even if it is much stronger than what Zucker does.
What burden? Your opponent has brought up an expert who disagrees with you. If you want to convince, you need to address that expert.
All they did was pulling a name out of a hat.
You will notice that they do not quote any studies or link to them. That's not an argument, that's an appeal to authority.
Contradicted by what many again?
Pretty much every single institute and prominent psychologists in Europe? Because Zuckers method is only used in North America, i could not find anyone in Europe using it.

See, you're making unsourced claims there again. I've reviewed your posts. You have yet to cite papers which contradict Zucker or imply that his method is a failure. This isn't to say that they don't exist (I linked to an overview article that discussed the rates at which childhood GID appears to persist into adulthood); you simply didn't cite them, refer to them, or in any fashion allude to their existence. Your "proof" amounted to re-stating your own model of transsexuality.
Wrong. They have to cite independent papers. No matter how famous a scientist is, his work has to be independently verified. Again, it is not my job to back up their claim.
By its very nature, studying whether childhood GID leads to adolescent and adult GID entails long-term observation. Also by its nature, peer review involves a certain level of scrutiny. And these are not the sort of things you are likely to evaluate well by skimming.
Yet i can not find long-term observation in Zuckers studies. If there is any, show it.
And by blind luck, you happen to have hit on something that could be backed up by actual scientific studies, were you only to think to back up your claims. And as it so happens, I knew where to find the relevant articles that show that 20% persistence of GID is actually not a small rate. Green published a study in 1987 - cited in numerous of Zucker's papers - that shows a very low rate of adult transsexualism among boys who were feminine in childhood (a set which many authors have assumed would contain a large percentage of boys who would meet the modern diagnostic criteria for GID). Low, meaning that out of the entire sample of feminine-acting boys, only one was a transsexual as an adult.
Less blind luck than compressed knowledge. More-or-less official german literature on transsexuality mentions that (1).
Of course, that not a scientific source and not quotable or linkable.
If you want to truly convince people, you're going to need to do more than throw out a volley of unsourced claims.
Tell that to your anti-trans trio.
What other empirical studies did his work contradict?

You'll want to source that claim if you want to push it anywhere.
Just the main theory about transsexuality which states that it is pretty independent on nurture?
See, you keep confusing lack of independent confirmation with independent contradiction. And, incidentally, totally missed subsequent papers on that very topic.
Papers which no one quoted. Again, it is not my job to back up their argument.
If they could show independent verification (studies in whose Zucker did NOT participate)


Again, you keep criticizing me because i demand evidence. My opponents used NO EVIDENCE AT ALL, they just appeal to Zuckers authority. But even if they did quote and link Zuckers studies - then that's still not enough proof. Because every well-accepted scientific theory is backed up by independent verification. If something can not be independently verified, it can not be solid. Zuckers hypothesis has been around for a long time, yet i can not find a single studies agreeing with him where he is not involved.
Just because something is published in a peer-reviewd journal it doesn't have to be right. That just means that it passed peer-review, but that doesn't meant that it is generally accepted or that it can not be wrong.

Again, it is Kors/Oraghans job to give actual evidence for their anti-trans claims.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:48 am

The above are just a few direct statments and claims you made in this thread they have not been altered nor have they been deliberatly taken out of context...
Ah, misrepresentation.
But of course, if i change my argument in the light of evidence, i must be dishonest.
You complain about "appeals to authority" but your defense against him is that he does not have authority enough......lol.

Anyway the DSM is recognised worldwide and his position on it was directly earned because of hs works and successes in this field.
Ooor because of his prominent position in the APA?
Again, you are still arguing based solely on his authority.
It is not contradicted by many.

You created a huge slippery slope strawman where you "claimed" his treatment was totally identical to some ex-gay therapy methods and because they did not work therefore his does not.
That's not a slippery slope.
Again, show any study not done by himself that shows that it is not harmful.
So you skimmed the reports found nothing and as such you decided to give his work the result of phony?.
Yes. If i do not find him doing actual resarch into the harm he does or the actual long-term success, then i can conclude that he did not do any.
But if he did, go ahead and quote and link it.
And if independant proof can be posted here just who does it need to be from for you to accept it?, because if i post some i do not want you to construct yet another strawman or denial after you have been proven wrong yet again.................lets face it you will not accept any report from anybody ever concerning this subject unless it agrees with you.
Do you understand the english language? And what the word "independent" means?
I want a study where Zucker had zero participation and influence where his findings are confirmed. Such studies should exist, but i can't find them. It's your job anyway.
Handwave + accusations of child abuse.....

The gay community and others made a petition regarding Dr zucker it made direct "CLAIMS" just like you do about him falsifying his reports ect, the APA found it so absurd they refused to even recognise it and accept it.
So, a body where Zucker has an important position rejected criticism of him?

1. You have lied about your direct and well documented claim regarding transgenders having female brains and accused myself and others of creating strawmen when we pointed it out.
No, i have not. Get some reading comprehension. That quote might seem very convincing to you, but you will notice that i argue about "identity". I suggest that you improve your quote-mining capabilities.
2. You claim our stance on Dr Zucker is a "appeal to authority" and your reply is that it is not enough authority even though his position gained from his work is recognised internationally.
You have not even linked or quoted his works. Since you are only screaming "Zuckers theory" again and again without making an actual argument, yes, it IS an appeal to authority.
3. YOU created a strawman argument regarding some gay therapies and then claimed that because the gay therapies did not work nor did Dr Zuckers, the proof you claim to have is ALL from the gay studies and NONE of it is directly related or from Dr Zuckers work.
Ok, so his methods are identical, he is trying to force children out of something that has been shown to be unchangeable (gender identity) and he never showed that his method is not as harmful as anti-gay therapy.
But it is entirely unreasonable to demand proof that his method is not harmful. Yes, absolutely convincing /sarcasm
4. You clearly say you skimmed and did not read his results properly ect but then go on to make claims about child abuse, falsifying study results and earlier in the thread attack the DSM board and accuse them of a conspiracy.
When looking for something which should be a major part of his studies, then yes - skimming is enough. If i had found him doing resarch on his method being non-harmful and actually successful, then i would have read it. But to look for it, i do not have to read his papers word by word.
5. You go on to make a handwave claim of insider knowledge on his patients and his sucesses and couple it with a accusation of child abuse.....a tactic that has been tried before by the gay commynity and others and was treated with utter contempt and disregard by the APA.
Running out of arguments?
Because this is an exact copy of what you said already, coupled with utter nonsense.



Hey, Kor, how about some actual evidence.?
Show independent research that confirms Zuckers findings.
Show research that shows that Zuckers method is not harmful.
Show research on actual long-term success.
And quote and link your sources.
Then you could have an argument. Just waving the name "Zucker" around is just an appeal to authority.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sun Aug 08, 2010 11:25 am

Serafina wrote:Ah, misrepresentation.
NOBODY is misrepresenting you, it is you who denied ever claiming it that is the issue here.

HERE is a direct unaltered statment regarding it:
Serafina wrote: How about actually linking to such studies?

But other than that - yes, they are actually confirming what i am saying.
Essentially, recent science agrees that there are differences between male and female brains.

Scientific studies also suggest that transwomen have female brains.


So far, scientific evidence agrees with me.
As it turned out the evidence DID NOT agree with you...
But of course, if i change my argument in the light of evidence, i must be dishonest.
Changing your argument is fine as long as you conceed you prior one instead of denying to have ever made it.
Do you understand the english language? And what the word "independent" means?
In ths case it seem to mean "agrees with serafinas desires".
I want a study where Zucker had zero participation and influence where his findings are confirmed. Such studies should exist, but i can't find them. It's your job anyway.
A study about Zucker and his methods and results ect but without him having any part is by its very definition impossable.

So, a body where Zucker has an important position rejected criticism of him?
WOW another hanwave towards a conspiracy.

Actually a body where Zucker has an important position in the American Psychological Association Task Force on Gender Identity, Gender Variance, and Intersex Conditions ONLY.........found claims of his alledged conspiracy abusurd so they threw them out.

I doubt those who made the claim walked up to Zucker himself and asked him to investigate himself........

No, i have not. Get some reading comprehension. That quote might seem very convincing to you, but you will notice that i argue about "identity". I suggest that you improve your quote-mining capabilities.
Accusations of quote mining and reading comprehension would be better recieved from somebody who did not admit to needing to change their argument because the evidence prooved them wrong in this very thread LOL.

Like i said above, the correct form is to conceed the point/claim that was refuted then make another one, claiming to have never made the initial claim makes you a liar.

You have not even linked or quoted his works. Since you are only screaming "Zuckers theory" again and again without making an actual argument, yes, it IS an appeal to authority.
His works and results have been linked and discussed and ANY claims of child abuse or falsified results were thrown out by the governing body (the APA).
Ok, so his methods are identical,
A CLAIM you have yet to prove.....thus any more speculation past that point is part of a strawman and or slippery slope.
When looking for something which should be a major part of his studies, then yes - skimming is enough.
To claim he abuses children, falsifies results and is part of a multinational conspiracy including the APA and other governing bodies of themedical establishment?.


Hey, Kor, how about some actual evidence.?
Show independent research that confirms Zuckers findings.
Show research that shows that Zuckers method is not harmful.
Show research on actual long-term success.
And quote and link your sources.
Then you could have an argument. Just waving the name "Zucker" around is just an appeal to authority.
The APA did not feel that a 10,000 strong petition making the same claims you did had any baisis what so ever so in that regard and considering the circumstances his methods, techniques and result are confirmed.


Again you ask for a "appeal to MORE authority" to counter what you consider a "appeal to authority" When we both know you will never accept anything that disagrees with your desires.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sun Aug 08, 2010 12:10 pm

I see that you again ignore my challenge to provide an actual argument.
The APA did not feel that a 10,000 strong petition making the same claims you did had any baisis what so ever so in that regard and considering the circumstances his methods, techniques and result are confirmed.
This is not evidence. Quote some studies, otherwise you are just appealing to authority.
Again you ask for a "appeal to MORE authority" to counter what you consider a "appeal to authority" When we both know you will never accept anything that disagrees with your desires.
No, i am not asking for appeals to authority.
I am asking that you provide an actual argument and present evidence on your own (by quoting and linking it) instead of just appealing to Zucker.

Hey, Kor, how about some actual evidence.?
Show independent research that confirms Zuckers findings.
Show research that shows that Zuckers method is not harmful.
Show research on actual long-term success.
And quote and link your sources.
Then you could have an argument. Just waving the name "Zucker" around is just an appeal to authority.

You did not present any evidence.
You did not show any independent resarch.
You did not show any research that his method was not harmful.
You did not show any research on actual long-term success.
You did not quote or long any sources.

Instead, you just appeal to Zuckers authority over and over again. You defend his authority and inflate it, you dodge the need for actual evidence and handwave criticism away, but you do not present any evidence at all.
In other words, you are just channeling your hate into anti-trans ravings without any reason behind it.

There are three possible reasons why you do not just provide the evidence:
1: The evidence doesn't exist. In that case, you are dishonest for claiming that it does. And it also casts a serious shadow of doubt on Zuckers work, since unconfirmed works are not very credible.
2: It exists, but you are unwilling to show it since it says things you do not want us to know. Such as brutishness in Zuckers method, his selection of patients and similar things, all of which could destroy your argument.
3: You have not actually looked into Zuckers work. In that case, you are not only dishonest for pretending that you did, but you also have no argument whatsoever and only an appeal to authority.

It's not that you can not look for papers. You can, you showed that earlier when we were debating on brain structure.
So you have two choices: Admit that any of the three above is true, or just post the evidence. Wailing about the "gay community" and appealing to Zuckers authority is just not an argument.

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 pm

Serafina wrote:
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 again, ignorance.
Science has determined why that japanese male might want to dress up like that. If he has a male gender identity (which can be determined scientifically) he is just cross-dressing.
If she has a female gender identity (again, scientifically determinable) she is a transwoman.
I don't care, this was not the point, genius. How can you so miss it? It's just so beyond me.
There, that's precisely why I won't bother arguing with you. You're not capable of arguing properly.
The rest of your first paragraph is just as golden:
Both are not necessarily related to chromosomes.
Not the topic of my reply to JMS.
Science doesn't stop looking at chromosomes tough - it looks at the actual personality.
Never said the contrary.
Which you are ignoring in order to focus on superficial and unrelated phenomena.
What a silly statement to make when the post you attack is precisely stemming from the premise that appearance, behaviour and dressing matter.
You so want to argue a specific point that you project your obsession on about anything I'd say, even it's just another topic.
Oh, and I find it funny that genetics would suddenly turn out to be "superficial and unrelated phenomena". Phenomena? What phenomena? When you use words, try to actually see if they are useful and meaningful, if they actually help building a sentence that has sense. Stop using terms that fill the vacuum of your absurd points when you have nothing smart to say.
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?"
And this is completely unrelated to transsexuality.
You're a little low on the biological computing side I see. I'm talking about appearance with JMS.
Don't try to argue points you don't understand. It just makes you look stupid.
You're such an obvious troll, and I don't intend to feed you. As for the rest of your putrid post: sniped.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sun Aug 08, 2010 2:22 pm

I don't care, this was not the point, genius. How can you so miss it? It's just so beyond me.
There, that's precisely why I won't bother arguing with you. You're not capable of arguing properly.
The rest of your first paragraph is just as golden:
Incidentally, a lot of stuff seems to be beyond you. Such as the fact that you have been arguing with me all the time.

And you will notice that i actually addressed your ignorance of transvetism and how it is different from transsexuality. You are constantly mixing up everything that doesn't fit your limited worldview anyway - anything that could be described as gender-queer.
You tried to mix up transsexuality with homosexuality, with intersexuality, with hermaphroditism, with simply looking somewhat gender ambiguous and now with transvestism/cross dressing.
As i said, this has just been another attempt to mix it up - either because the difference is beyond you, or because you want to obfuscate the issue.

What a silly statement to make when the post you attack is precisely stemming from the premise that appearance, behaviour and dressing matter.
And now my argument seems to be beyond you.
Oh, and how is behavior superficial or unrelated?
Generally, this is an argument about personality. People like you oppose free development of it, at least if it contradicts your prejudice.
And all of the above are indicators of personality - much more like genetics or biology are. Hence, they are more relevant to the debate than them.
You so want to argue a specific point that you project your obsession on about anything I'd say, even it's just another topic.
Yes, call me obsessed. You have already demonstrated that you see me as a sick addict, a claim that you never actually retracted.
Oh, and I find it funny that genetics would suddenly turn out to be "superficial and unrelated phenomena". Phenomena? What phenomena? When you use words, try to actually see if they are useful and meaningful, if they actually help building a sentence that has sense. Stop using terms that fill the vacuum of your absurd points when you have nothing smart to say.
You don't know what phenomena are?
A phenomenon is an observable occurrence. Phenomena is the plural of that. It is a very generalist term, but it is not a wrong one.
You're a little low on the biological computing side I see. I'm talking about appearance with JMS.
Don't try to argue points you don't understand. It just makes you look stupid.
You're such an obvious troll, and I don't intend to feed you. As for the rest of your putrid post: sniped.
So tell me then:
How is this related in any way related to transsexuality?

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 3:16 pm

Serafina wrote:
I don't care, this was not the point, genius. How can you so miss it? It's just so beyond me.
There, that's precisely why I won't bother arguing with you. You're not capable of arguing properly.
The rest of your first paragraph is just as golden:
Incidentally, a lot of stuff seems to be beyond you. Such as the fact that you have been arguing with me all the time.
And?
The world is not just about you. I was arguing with JMS.
And you will notice that i actually addressed your ignorance of transvetism and how it is different from transsexuality.
You mean that post from a long time ago? We already moved on Serafina.
Here I was talking with JMS about physiognomy, dressing and behaviour.
You are constantly mixing up everything that doesn't fit your limited worldview anyway - anything that could be described as gender-queer.
Empty attack.
You tried to mix up transsexuality with homosexuality...
No.
...with intersexuality...
Not really.
...with hermaphroditism...
Neither.
But keep trying.
...with simply looking somewhat gender ambiguous...
Fail.
... and now with transvestism/cross dressing.
Now?
You are really that clueless to the point?

Little summary of what's been going on.
First, you're replying to a post of me which was a reply to JMS' post. The topic was physiognomy, behaviour and dressing codes, and the societal norms. No more, no less.
Of course we already know by now that you'll jump on about every single sentence I type because you just hate me with a passion, so much that you don't even read what I write anymore.
It is so desperate, so absurd, that you'd still attack me even if I said I'd agree with everything you said.

Also, there is nothing "now" about transvestism and transsexuality.
That was a point in my original post, the very first one.
I originally thought that transsexuality could be related to a very, very strong desire to be as much close to a woman as possible, but before taking chemicals and undergoing operations. Although I admitted being wrong, I also noticed that Blanchard actually thought about the same for a time.
That's why I considered that for my very first time involvement in a discussion about TS while being a straight person, it wasn't that bad.
Of course, we know how you handled that, with everything from accusations of eugenics, Nazism, anti-black racism and quoting me out of context on that anti-fundie cesspool of yours, plus some other private boards.
Oh but wait, you're again pulling that shit again? Because I'm pretty sure I already said that like a billion times.
You are only there to stir trouble and harass people.

Finally, the point here is about showing how matching physiognomy, behaviour and dressing codes of occidental societies is the end goal of TS people who want to transition, and my point is that it better has to be good enough to pass.
Like it or not, it's a fact.
That's why I point out that most people will be put off, repelled by someone pretending to be of a given gender but actually being betrayed by signs showing that it's not the case.
People in occidental societies, and even more in Latin societies, attach importance to a clear separation of the codes for both genders.
In some other societies, it may be less so, there may be more lenient and less opposition between the signs and codes of both genders.
What a silly statement to make when the post you attack is precisely stemming from the premise that appearance, behaviour and dressing matter.
And now my argument seems to be beyond you.
You have no argument. You were just typing silly crap because you couldn't spend enough time reading what people actually wrote, instead of what you think the evil fundie has written.
Oh, and how is behavior superficial or unrelated?
I never said so.
I even thought you were saying that it was biology that was superficial or unrelated.
Unrelated to what, of course, you'll tell me, because I have no clue about the silly point you're (not) trying to make here.
Generally, this is an argument about personality. People like you oppose free development of it, at least if it contradicts your prejudice.
Contradict your prejudice . . .

. . .

I have to ask you.
Do you randomly pick words from the dictionary?
Because you certainly look like you're displaying the signs of cortex meltdown here.
And all of the above are indicators of personality - much more like genetics or biology are. Hence, they are more relevant to the debate than them.
It's funny, because I recall that between you and me, I was the one originally claiming that biology was just as important as the rest.
Very interesting, that late spin of yours.
As I said, you're ready to do about anything fallacious, even short term revisionism, just to score points on "arguments".
I should probably let you push it a notch further: you'll surely manage to argue against yourself.
You so want to argue a specific point that you project your obsession on about anything I'd say, even it's just another topic.
Yes, call me obsessed. You have already demonstrated that you see me as a sick addict, a claim that you never actually retracted.
A "sick addict"? Drop the persecution syndrome Serafina, you're being silly.
I certainly didn't retract the addiction claim to about every single element that compose the HRT. It's easily available on Internet. Any query composed from the name of one of the elements used in HRT and addiction will prove me abundantly right.
Oh, and I find it funny that genetics would suddenly turn out to be "superficial and unrelated phenomena". Phenomena? What phenomena? When you use words, try to actually see if they are useful and meaningful, if they actually help building a sentence that has sense. Stop using terms that fill the vacuum of your absurd points when you have nothing smart to say.
You don't know what phenomena are?
A phenomenon is an observable occurrence. Phenomena is the plural of that. It is a very generalist term, but it is not a wrong one.
me knowsn't what fenomuna is means

I just found it hilarious that you'd use such words in relation to genetics. Superficial and unrelated phenomena. And genetics. Really, you're setting a standard here.
You're a little low on the biological computing side I see. I'm talking about appearance with JMS.
Don't try to argue points you don't understand. It just makes you look stupid.
You're such an obvious troll, and I don't intend to feed you. As for the rest of your putrid post: sniped.
So tell me then:
How is this related in any way related to transsexuality?
Oh. That's quite stellar. Now, physiognomy, behaviour and dressing codes don't matter.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sun Aug 08, 2010 4:25 pm

And?
The world is not just about you. I was arguing with JMS.
Given that he regularly takes the liberty to comment on my comments, i see no reason why i can not do the same.
Not that it influences the validity of my words either way.
You mean that post from a long time ago? We already moved on Serafina.
Here I was talking with JMS about physiognomy, dressing and behaviour.
No, i clearly said that i meant your last post. This is still a topic about transsexuality, yet you are mixing it up with completely different issues. Which you have been doing all the time.
See this:
Now?
You are really that clueless to the point?
Little summary of what's been going on.
First, you're replying to a post of me which was a reply to JMS' post. The topic was physiognomy, behaviour and dressing codes, and the societal norms. No more, no less.
In other words, you are arguing something completely unrelated to transsexuality. Also called off-topic or derailing a thread.
Also, there is nothing "now" about transvestism and transsexuality.
That was a point in my original post, the very first one.
I originally thought that transsexuality could be related to a very, very strong desire to be as much close to a woman as possible, but before taking chemicals and undergoing operations. Although I admitted being wrong, I also noticed that Blanchard actually thought about the same for a time.
And yet you are doing it again. Talking about transvestitism-related behavior while in a topic about transsexuality.
That's why I considered that for my very first time involvement in a discussion about TS while being a straight person, it wasn't that bad.
Here is a hint:
Transsexual people can be just as straight as you are.
Of course, we know how you handled that, with everything from accusations of eugenics, Nazism, anti-black racism and quoting me out of context on that anti-fundie cesspool of yours, plus some other private boards.
Oh but wait, you're again pulling that shit again? Because I'm pretty sure I already said that like a billion times.
You are only there to stir trouble and harass people.
Oh, really?
Actually, i am here after asking JMS himself if i might argue this issue here. I originally wanted to discuss with WILGA only, but he chickened out.
Finally, the point here is about showing how matching physiognomy, behaviour and dressing codes of occidental societies is the end goal of TS people who want to transition, and my point is that it better has to be good enough to pass.
In other words, you would dislike people that do not pass solely for the way they look.
Like it or not, it's a fact.
Like it or not, tolerant people can look beyond physical appearance. That goes as far as seeing your girlfriend completely as a woman even when she had not had her SRS.
That's why I point out that most people will be put off, repelled by someone pretending to be of a given gender but actually being betrayed by signs showing that it's not the case.
Not most people. Just people like you. Ignorant, intolerant people.
People in occidental societies, and even more in Latin societies, attach importance to a clear separation of the codes for both genders.
In some other societies, it may be less so, there may be more lenient and less opposition between the signs and codes of both genders.
Germany is pretty much an occidental society, thank you very much. And an astonishing amount of people is decades more advanced than you in regards to tolerance.

A "sick addict"? Drop the persecution syndrome Serafina, you're being silly.
Hey, just in case you suffer from a memory deficit:
YOU were the one who brought up a completely unscientific book just in order to claim that i was an addict. To quote you back from page 29:
Pichler wrote a book.
Here is a summary of what it argues:

"In his book Pichler looks at transsexualism as a behavioral addiction, much like a sex addiction, Internet addiction or gambling addiction, which is caused by a faulty reward system in the human brain. Pichler further reports that the medications that effectively treat behavioral addictions show good results in treating transsexualism. Pichler further shows that if the medical community were to treat transsexualism in the context of a behavioral addiction in lieu of a gender identity disorder, that transsexualism as it is known today would be virtually eradicated within one generation."
There. You support the claim that transsexuality is a behavioral addiction - solely based on a single book that is completely disregarded by the entire scientific community.
IIRC, you never retracted that claim.
You also made numerous claims where you considered people with a male appearance who claimed to be women as mentally sick, as you did back on page 32:
I wouldn't, because that person would be a total wacko, and giving in into his delusion would be irresponsible and nuts.
I certainly didn't retract the addiction claim to about every single element that compose the HRT. It's easily available on Internet. Any query composed from the name of one of the elements used in HRT and addiction will prove me abundantly right.
And again, your drivel about transsexuality being an addiction is based on a single book written by a layperson. You have zero evidence for it.
At best, you could claim that HRT leads to an addiction - but given that it does not require a constantly increasing input, it does not qualify as one either. The mere presence of withdrawal symptoms does not qualify something as being an addiction, unless you reject the actual medical definition.
I just found it hilarious that you'd use such words in relation to genetics. Superficial and unrelated phenomena. And genetics. Really, you're setting a standard here.
When i doubt, i prefer to use a generalistic term rather than a specific term that might be wrong.
Oh. That's quite stellar. Now, physiognomy, behaviour and dressing codes don't matter.
Aaand another strawman.
The physiognomy, behavior and dressing codes of cross-dressers are at best tangential to transsexuality.
Again, you are the one who claims that a male-looking person who says that she is a woman is absolutely nuts. I can see why it matters to you, but that doesn't mean that it actually matters in a logical argument.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sun Aug 08, 2010 7:14 pm

Serafina wrote:This is not evidence. Quote some studies, otherwise you are just appealing to authority.
WHY?.

Zucker does a study and posts results.......so you AD HOM Zucker.

The APA support him and not only refute but rfuse to entertain on any serious level a petition claiming he has falsified reports and abuses children....you AD HOM the APA claiming they are part of a conspiracy TO PROMOTE A CHILD ABUSER.

ARE WE SEEING A PATTERN?...i think we are seeing a typical tactic of disregarding proof and material based on personal bias rather than facts, you keepo movingh the goal posts regarding proof because i keep hitting the mark.


You do realise your entire argument against this man and others revolves around and requires that the governing body of the APA and the DSM are particapating in a cover up to abuse children?.

Go away until you can construct a valid argument that does not invole attacking and accusing the hierarcy of the entire psycological community of covering up child abuse.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Serafina » Sun Aug 08, 2010 8:01 pm

WHY?.

Zucker does a study and posts results.......so you AD HOM Zucker.
Because, in a debate, it is not enough to just name a scientist. Of course, it is good to quote actual research - but you did not do that. You just appealed to Zuckers name.
You do realise your entire argument against this man and others revolves around and requires that the governing body of the APA and the DSM are particapating in a cover up to abuse children?.
And you should realize that i am not basing my attack on your argument on my attack on Zucker.
You have posted not a single study by Zucker, neither by link or quote. You have just appealed to Zucker over and over again. That is the definition of an appeal to authority.

And again, demanding independent proof for a study is a normal part of the scientific process. If you make such a big claim as Zucker (a complete model of transsexuality contradicting other findings about gender identity and based on no other evidence) then you need a large body of evidence to support it. The bigger the claim, the more evidence required. But if all the research is done by a single person or group, it is not reliable. Especially if their research can not be independently measured. If you can point to independent studies that give the same (or very similar) results, then you have good proof that their research is valid. If you do not, then it has little value.

There have always been scientists in high positions that tried to escape that part of peer review - the hard part. That's just a natural reaction to their (often even justified) high opinion of themselves. But their high position doesn't make them immune to peer critizism and the need for evidence. A world-class phyiscists had as much need to provide evidence as Einstein had in 1905. And this is good, because authority is not logical argument or useful evidence in science.
In other words, Zuckers position doesn't remove then need for independent verification of his findings. But apparently, you can't find any from the dozens of institutes worldwide that also work with children with GID and TS. Or from the even larger numbers of individual researchers.

But if there is no independent verification, Zuckers hypothesis is just that and lacks actual power. Because his own studies are not nearly enough evidence for such a large claim.
Go away until you can construct a valid argument that does not invole attacking and accusing the hierarcy of the entire psycological community of covering up child abuse.
The APA is not the entire psychological community. It's right there in the name.

Now, how about you start making an actual argument with actual evidence?
And don't forget the independent studies, because research without them is just unverified and unreliable.

Edit:
Oh, and the critics do not only include non-scientists. This might only be a letter to the editor, but at least it's freely available. In any case, that's all that's needed to disprove your drivel that there is no scientific consent against Zucker or that he is universally accepted.

Edit:
Oh, and Zucker doesn't even need to be that fraudulent. All he has to do is to mix up transsexuality in children and other (incl. non-clinical) GIDs in children. And then he can claim to sucessfully cure transsexuality by curing other GIDs, which often disappear on their own.
In other words, he works on the assumption that children that express gender behavior that contradicts their sex will automatically turn out to be transsexual, or at least that a high percentage of them will.
But even if he discerns between those two groups, there is still enough valid critizism left - most of all the apparent complete lack of independent verification of his findings. But if you are the only one who can find something, you are most likely not a genius but just plain wrong.

Edit:
Heck, even the DSM IV admit thats children with GID mostly settle into a sex-equivalent gender role later on:
For clinically referred children, onset of cross-gender interests and activities is usually between ages 2 and 4 years, and some parents report that their child has always had cross-gender interests. Only a very small number of children with gender Identity Disorder will continue to have symptoms that meet criteria for Gender Identity Disorder in later adolescence or adulthood.
....
By late adolescence or adulthood, about three-quarters of boys who had a childhood history of Gender Identity Disorder report a homosexual or bisexual orientation, but without concurrent Gender Identity Disorder. Most of the remainder report a heterosexual orientation, also without concurrent Gender Identity Disorder.
In other words, 75% percent of children with GID settle into a gender role according to their sex on their own. Which puts Zuckers numbers well into an area where it could all be natural development, if we give an margin of error based on his selection methods and insufficient observation.

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

Re: Transreality

Post by Kor_Dahar_Master » Sun Aug 08, 2010 10:05 pm

Because, in a debate, it is not enough to just name a scientist. Of course, it is good to quote actual research - but you did not do that. You just appealed to Zuckers name.
His name and his results were given, they are obviously supported by the APA board and the DSM.
There have always been scientists in high positions that tried to escape that part of peer review - the hard part.
Again you accuse the APA and DSM committe of either incompetance for choosing him without checking his work or conspiracy in support of child abuse.

He got his promotions and positions within the APA and DSM (2007 and 2008) BECAUSE of and AFTER his work and reports on GIDIC not before it, i suggest you research your absurd claims of APA/DSM incompetance and or conspiracy in support of child abuse a bit better in future.

The APA is not the entire psychological community. It's right there in the name.
I do believe i said APA and DSM and yes the DSM are quite simply the technical manuals or bibles as they have been refered to for mental illnesses for the entire psycological community..
Oh, and the critics do not only include non-scientists. This might only be a letter to the editor, but at least it's freely available. In any case, that's all that's needed to disprove your drivel that there is no scientific consent against Zucker or that he is universally accepted.
Yes its a freely available letter written by Drs. Bradley and Zucker regarding a comment we have not fully seen from Dr. Pickstone-Taylor.....so what?.

1. A letter commenting on a doctor who called Drs. Bradley and Zucker homophobic regarding a issue to do with children with GID?. Can you do no better than a guy who does not know the differance between a homosexual and a transgebder?.

2. One letter from a person who aparantly cannot tell the differance between transgender and homosexuality is not proof of scientific conset against Zucker.

3. I never said he was Universally accepted as im sure their are those who disagree with him, however he has been chosen to be a representative and even be chair of a body that defines GIDIC amoung other things for the DSM.

Post Reply