Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting!
NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.
On April 24 2023 20:36 BlackJack wrote: [quote] Just from personal experience I can say it’s absolutely crazy now that everyday I meet a new transgendered kid that wants to kill themselves and 5 years ago this did not exist.
Your personal experiences may have changed, but I can guarantee it's not that they didn't exist 5 years ago. Autism isn't on the cusp of consuming humanity, for example, we're just finally diagnosing it more, so the numbers started going up. People who were left-handed, and people who are gay, aren't suddenly increasing in number now that they're allowed to exist.
These people have always existed. Its whether their existence is being acknowledged by others, and whether they feel safe to identify as they are. That's what's changing.
Going to bump this conversation since not much is happening in this thread and I now have some time to lay down some thoughts on this idea that the explosion in transgenderism/non-binary-ism is coming from people that were essentially born that way and society had just been repressing them until now.
“Tourette syndrome symptoms portrayals on highly-viewed TikTok videos are predominantly not representative or typical of Tourette syndrome,” says Alonso Zea Vera, M.D., neurologist at Children’s National Hospital and lead author of the study.
“Although many videos are aimed at increasing Tourette syndrome awareness, I worry that some features of these videos can result in confusion and further stigmatization,” Dr. Zea Vera says. “A common cause of stigmatization in Tourette syndrome is the exaggeration of coprolalia (cursing tics) in the media. We found that many videos portrayed this (often used for a comedic effect) despite being a relatively rare symptom in Tourette syndrome.”
Tourette's is just one of many. There are a slew of other mental health illnesses that supposedly increased dramatically during the pandemic and primarily among adolescents. POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, just to name a few. What you have on TikTok is a place where adults have left the room and teens are diagnosing each other and going down these algorithm driven rabbit holes. Then you can easily doctor shop until you get the diagnosis you want. You can find news stories on the shortage of adderall because a short tele-health zoom meeting can get you an ADHD diagnosis and an adderall prescription.
But why are all these teenagers tripping over themselves to try to get diagnosed with ailments? One theory is that it might be related to society telling us that if you're white you're an oppressor. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think not everyone wants to be identified as a little white privileged racist cunt. If you can go from that to being a victim of genocide or a victim of other able-ist bigotry maybe it's a tempting offer.
Another theory is that some people just want attention and clout. If you're average looking with rather average interests and hobbies literally nobody is going to care about you on social media. Having some illness at least gives you a niche that might be somewhat interesting and create that positive feedback loop of receiving more attention and then playing up your niche even harder and so on.
Or.... we could just use the left-handed theory and just assume that marked increases in these illnesses just come from society no longer persecuting them and people are now finally free to display their tics or change their gender. Sure, a plausible theory. To me it doesn't even seem like the most likely. To me the idea that somebody would be so confident in that theory that they have no hesitation in surgically removing the breasts of young women seems insane.
While tics can be indicative of Tourette syndrome, tics can also come about without that specific mental health diagnosis. Stress/anxiety/nervousness, lack of sleep, withdrawal, and other factors can create motor/facial/verbal tics even without having Tourette's. As someone who has Tourette's, I really appreciate your link elaborating on the fact that most cases aren't the extreme "scream curse words" level of Tourette's that many people think is standard.
I can definitely see how new stressors (like dealing with the fallout of a global pandemic) could potentially lead to tics, and even how some impressionable minds could trick themselves via confirmation bias into thinking they might have mental health issues when they see other people with self-diagnosed problems. That being said, I'm not sure if I buy the idea that people are consciously faking Tourette's en masse, just to appear special.
I also don't know if Tourette's, OCD, or PTSD parallels transgenderism particularly well. For example, if there was an actual cure for my Tourette's - which there isn't - I'd be first in line, but I'm not really experiencing a tremendous amount of social pressure or condemnation or anti-Tourette legislation. On the other hand, I think the trans community is looking more for cultural acceptance and validation, and the opportunity to make their own medical decisions and avoid anti-trans laws.
"Faking it" is not the correct characterization of my argument. I don't think anyone is faking anything to be oppressed or faking anything for clout. I would call these things subliminal incentives or catalysts. Our minds are impressionable indeed, young minds even more so. It's why billions of dollars are spent on advertising. It's why placebos can heal people. It's why people with conversion disorder can be unable to walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs. You wouldn't say that somebody that can't walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs was "faking it."
When you see a bunch of different ailments that are increasing significantly in prevalence and manifesting in ways we don't typically see you need an explanation. Some illnesses that were typically more prevalent in males are now more prevalent in females. Some illnesses that typically first surfaced in early childhood are now surfacing acutely in adolescent girls. Amazing coincidences. Sure you could have a different theory to explain each of these, e.g. less repression of transgendered people means more people feel comfortable coming out and more stress during the pandemic means more people are developing tics, etc. Or you could just have the one theory that explains it all - that this is primarily driven by social contagion related to the rise in Tiktok and social media. Occam's razor applies.
The woman in this video is far more eloquent than I am and I think she makes a good argument. Starts at 15:30 in this video and is about 7 minutes in length
I didn't think you were making any "argument" in particular. You listed a few competing hypotheses, and I reflected on them. The video clip brings in anorexia as yet another parallel, so now we're comparing trans identity to Tourette's, POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, and anorexia. I'm still not sure what the point is, here. If you're making an actual argument (not that you have to be, but you're claiming to be arguing something), what is it?
My argument is that there are a lot of people that are convinced that if you have gender dysphoria it was merely something you were born and it may decide to show up whenever. The evidence for that is very weak. Some of us think there is a social contagion aspect and if there is then parents are right to be concerned with what their children are exposed to.
I went to elementary school myself. I'm sure you did too. When I was there I don't remember being taught that I could be a girl if I wanted to. Or I could be both. Or neither. Or that me having a penis maybe means I'm a boy but it could mean anything. I don't remember my elementary school hosting gender resource fairs.
The idea that only one side is leading this culture war is quite wrong. Pushing back against teaching gender ideology to young impressionable children does not make you the de facto aggressor.
To convince other people of your opinion you're going to need more than just "I feel" and finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. Show evidence of a social contagion before you insist that it must be true to others.
Otherwise it's just insulting to these groups to imply that they're just glomming onto a fad, instead of grappling with exactly who they are and what that means to them.
I didn't say it must be true. I said I think it's the most plausible theory. On the other hand you are the one that said you "guarantee" that my theory is wrong and yours is the correct one despite offering no evidence yourself. That takes quite a bit of nerve, don't you think?
It shouldn't be up to a layperson to decide what they think is the most plausible theory. It should be easy to go find studies that tell us what is the most plausible theory.
Gender identity is an important issue in society, yet its causative mechanism is poorly understood. The main anatomical differences between males and females are the genitalia and the brain. This paper reviewed the literature to explore the link between genetic influences and brain development, and their impact on gender identity. Investigating these developmental mechanisms could lead to advances in the understanding of gender dysphoria, a condition whereby an individual’s gender and biological sex are mismatched. Exploring the biochemical development of the genitalia highlights the differences between males and females, notably how testosterone elicits the pathways of male development in an embryo. When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity. Further research is required to shed light on the molecular mechanism of this, allowing for greater education and understanding of this scientific and social phenomenon.
Essentially according to this review there seems to be a biological/genetic component to gender dysphoria, which would certainly throw doubt on the 'social contagion' theory, and definitely undermines the idea that it is the 'most plausible' theory.
Yes, a biological component to gender dysphoria. Component meaning one of of numerous parts. Nobody would argue that gender dysphoria is strictly a biological phenomenon. In fact, here's a sentence from your own source:
However, GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain.
Despite NewSunshine's confidence, we don't know what causes gender dysphoria.
See what you want to do is apply selective listening here and completely ignore the environmental and cultural variables and only consider the biological variable. NewSunshine's theory posits that one's gender identity is unmalleable and the # of transgendered people is fixed and the only reason we are seeing more is merely because more transgendered people are willing to become uncloseted.
In other words, my theory offers room for biological components to gender identity and NewSunShine's theory doesn't offer room for environmental/cultural components to gender identity.
On April 24 2023 21:13 NewSunshine wrote: [quote] Your personal experiences may have changed, but I can guarantee it's not that they didn't exist 5 years ago. Autism isn't on the cusp of consuming humanity, for example, we're just finally diagnosing it more, so the numbers started going up. People who were left-handed, and people who are gay, aren't suddenly increasing in number now that they're allowed to exist.
These people have always existed. Its whether their existence is being acknowledged by others, and whether they feel safe to identify as they are. That's what's changing.
Going to bump this conversation since not much is happening in this thread and I now have some time to lay down some thoughts on this idea that the explosion in transgenderism/non-binary-ism is coming from people that were essentially born that way and society had just been repressing them until now.
“Tourette syndrome symptoms portrayals on highly-viewed TikTok videos are predominantly not representative or typical of Tourette syndrome,” says Alonso Zea Vera, M.D., neurologist at Children’s National Hospital and lead author of the study.
“Although many videos are aimed at increasing Tourette syndrome awareness, I worry that some features of these videos can result in confusion and further stigmatization,” Dr. Zea Vera says. “A common cause of stigmatization in Tourette syndrome is the exaggeration of coprolalia (cursing tics) in the media. We found that many videos portrayed this (often used for a comedic effect) despite being a relatively rare symptom in Tourette syndrome.”
Tourette's is just one of many. There are a slew of other mental health illnesses that supposedly increased dramatically during the pandemic and primarily among adolescents. POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, just to name a few. What you have on TikTok is a place where adults have left the room and teens are diagnosing each other and going down these algorithm driven rabbit holes. Then you can easily doctor shop until you get the diagnosis you want. You can find news stories on the shortage of adderall because a short tele-health zoom meeting can get you an ADHD diagnosis and an adderall prescription.
But why are all these teenagers tripping over themselves to try to get diagnosed with ailments? One theory is that it might be related to society telling us that if you're white you're an oppressor. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think not everyone wants to be identified as a little white privileged racist cunt. If you can go from that to being a victim of genocide or a victim of other able-ist bigotry maybe it's a tempting offer.
Another theory is that some people just want attention and clout. If you're average looking with rather average interests and hobbies literally nobody is going to care about you on social media. Having some illness at least gives you a niche that might be somewhat interesting and create that positive feedback loop of receiving more attention and then playing up your niche even harder and so on.
Or.... we could just use the left-handed theory and just assume that marked increases in these illnesses just come from society no longer persecuting them and people are now finally free to display their tics or change their gender. Sure, a plausible theory. To me it doesn't even seem like the most likely. To me the idea that somebody would be so confident in that theory that they have no hesitation in surgically removing the breasts of young women seems insane.
While tics can be indicative of Tourette syndrome, tics can also come about without that specific mental health diagnosis. Stress/anxiety/nervousness, lack of sleep, withdrawal, and other factors can create motor/facial/verbal tics even without having Tourette's. As someone who has Tourette's, I really appreciate your link elaborating on the fact that most cases aren't the extreme "scream curse words" level of Tourette's that many people think is standard.
I can definitely see how new stressors (like dealing with the fallout of a global pandemic) could potentially lead to tics, and even how some impressionable minds could trick themselves via confirmation bias into thinking they might have mental health issues when they see other people with self-diagnosed problems. That being said, I'm not sure if I buy the idea that people are consciously faking Tourette's en masse, just to appear special.
I also don't know if Tourette's, OCD, or PTSD parallels transgenderism particularly well. For example, if there was an actual cure for my Tourette's - which there isn't - I'd be first in line, but I'm not really experiencing a tremendous amount of social pressure or condemnation or anti-Tourette legislation. On the other hand, I think the trans community is looking more for cultural acceptance and validation, and the opportunity to make their own medical decisions and avoid anti-trans laws.
"Faking it" is not the correct characterization of my argument. I don't think anyone is faking anything to be oppressed or faking anything for clout. I would call these things subliminal incentives or catalysts. Our minds are impressionable indeed, young minds even more so. It's why billions of dollars are spent on advertising. It's why placebos can heal people. It's why people with conversion disorder can be unable to walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs. You wouldn't say that somebody that can't walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs was "faking it."
When you see a bunch of different ailments that are increasing significantly in prevalence and manifesting in ways we don't typically see you need an explanation. Some illnesses that were typically more prevalent in males are now more prevalent in females. Some illnesses that typically first surfaced in early childhood are now surfacing acutely in adolescent girls. Amazing coincidences. Sure you could have a different theory to explain each of these, e.g. less repression of transgendered people means more people feel comfortable coming out and more stress during the pandemic means more people are developing tics, etc. Or you could just have the one theory that explains it all - that this is primarily driven by social contagion related to the rise in Tiktok and social media. Occam's razor applies.
The woman in this video is far more eloquent than I am and I think she makes a good argument. Starts at 15:30 in this video and is about 7 minutes in length
I didn't think you were making any "argument" in particular. You listed a few competing hypotheses, and I reflected on them. The video clip brings in anorexia as yet another parallel, so now we're comparing trans identity to Tourette's, POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, and anorexia. I'm still not sure what the point is, here. If you're making an actual argument (not that you have to be, but you're claiming to be arguing something), what is it?
My argument is that there are a lot of people that are convinced that if you have gender dysphoria it was merely something you were born and it may decide to show up whenever. The evidence for that is very weak. Some of us think there is a social contagion aspect and if there is then parents are right to be concerned with what their children are exposed to.
I went to elementary school myself. I'm sure you did too. When I was there I don't remember being taught that I could be a girl if I wanted to. Or I could be both. Or neither. Or that me having a penis maybe means I'm a boy but it could mean anything. I don't remember my elementary school hosting gender resource fairs.
The idea that only one side is leading this culture war is quite wrong. Pushing back against teaching gender ideology to young impressionable children does not make you the de facto aggressor.
To convince other people of your opinion you're going to need more than just "I feel" and finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. Show evidence of a social contagion before you insist that it must be true to others.
Otherwise it's just insulting to these groups to imply that they're just glomming onto a fad, instead of grappling with exactly who they are and what that means to them.
I didn't say it must be true. I said I think it's the most plausible theory. On the other hand you are the one that said you "guarantee" that my theory is wrong and yours is the correct one despite offering no evidence yourself. That takes quite a bit of nerve, don't you think?
It shouldn't be up to a layperson to decide what they think is the most plausible theory. It should be easy to go find studies that tell us what is the most plausible theory.
Gender identity is an important issue in society, yet its causative mechanism is poorly understood. The main anatomical differences between males and females are the genitalia and the brain. This paper reviewed the literature to explore the link between genetic influences and brain development, and their impact on gender identity. Investigating these developmental mechanisms could lead to advances in the understanding of gender dysphoria, a condition whereby an individual’s gender and biological sex are mismatched. Exploring the biochemical development of the genitalia highlights the differences between males and females, notably how testosterone elicits the pathways of male development in an embryo. When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity. Further research is required to shed light on the molecular mechanism of this, allowing for greater education and understanding of this scientific and social phenomenon.
Essentially according to this review there seems to be a biological/genetic component to gender dysphoria, which would certainly throw doubt on the 'social contagion' theory, and definitely undermines the idea that it is the 'most plausible' theory.
Yes, a biological component to gender dysphoria. Component meaning one of of numerous parts. Nobody would argue that gender dysphoria is strictly a biological phenomenon. In fact, here's a sentence from your own source:
See what you want to do is apply selective listening here and completely ignore the environmental and cultural variables and only consider the biological variable. NewSunshine's theory posits that one's gender identity is unmalleable and the # of transgendered people is fixed and the only reason we are seeing more is merely because more transgendered people are willing to become uncloseted.
In other words, my theory offers room for biological components to gender identity and NewSunShine's theory doesn't offer room for environmental/cultural components to gender identity.
But surely your theory is that the only reason so many people are coming out as trans is that other people are doing it. That's what social contagion means isn't it?
Otherwise you can't assume that social contagion, in this case, isn't actually a very good thing. Think about it: If there's a biological basis for gender dysphoria, then the only thing STOPPING those people from coming out as trans are social/environmental conditions. Now, lets assume (I'm not looking up and reading more studies right now) living with gender dysphoria and not doing anything about it is harmful to an individual's mental health. I think that's a fair assumption to make. Surely if the social contagion is caused by more support, acceptance and less harmful, controlling behaviour on the part of society, then the social aspect is going to be a huge positive for society in general.
I'm not applying selective listening in the slightest bit. The prior cause here is biological. That's undeniable. It happens from birth. So given that information, we have the choice to simply pretend that that isn't true, and force people to ignore their own biology, or have the social mechanisms in place to actually help these people, and that's what you seem to be objecting to, instead simply ignoring the biological aspect and pretending its just a meme.
On May 18 2023 17:56 Magic Powers wrote: Conservatives aren't making a big fuss over cis people getting plastic surgery at an alarming rate, and at an increasingly young age, most of it being for cosmetic reasons and not health related. It's only a problem to them when it concerns gender affirmation.
Both types are mostly meant to improve people's mental wellness. One is far more common than the other.
From that I can only conclude that conservatives just don't like transgender people. The bullies among them have found an easy target to push around and villify and they're relentless in their pursuit.
Unlike other people I'm not willing to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt. They're just really really narcissistic about this whole thing, and their arguments are in bad faith.
I think this is a weird misreading to twist conservatives into bad faith.
There is certainly a deeper and bigger suspicion of transgender people as predatory, but I think conservatives have usually been pretty clear that they are opposed to the hypersexual culture and especially when it is targeted at children. Like I think conservatives also disapprove of hypersexual culture in rap culture (e.g. Cardi B's WAP), but this song is clearly not meant for children because there are clean versions for the general public.
I think the counterargument to what you are saying is that nobody would encourage young children to get cis plastic surgery, especially not to enhance or alter their genitals. The FDA has minimum age requirements to get breast or penile implants, for instance.
So I don't deny that there is bad faith in the way that conservatives demonize transgenderism and exaggerate its influence and impact, but plastic surgery is not a good example.
If we'd ask every conservative who's against transitioning, I'd bet a whole lot of them are in favor of plastic surgery for cis people for cosmetic reasons. It would very much surprise me if not. And some of them I'm sure would even be in favor of it for kids. I doubt they'd even oppose growth hormone treatment. I'm 100% convinced it's a double standard. Their outrage over transitioning is them wanting to exert control over a minority, not because they make valid points but simply because they can.
Stuffing your opponents full of straw is easy.
Ask the harder question of falsification: is there a plastic surgery or hormone treatment that conservatives could oppose for children, and you think they make a valid point? For example, they condemn female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East. They have condemned various attempts at trans-racial changes, such as mocking Michael Jackson for bleaching his skin or that British guy who tried to make himself Korean.
The Wikipedia article explains the meaning behind "cultural factors". The claim is that, while GD is real, the discomfort may not be so severe if society was fully accepting. This isn't an argument that culture causes more cases of GD, but that culture worsens the discomfort experienced by people with GD.
Reading the full article instead of quote-mining would help move the discussion forward.
On May 18 2023 17:56 Magic Powers wrote: Conservatives aren't making a big fuss over cis people getting plastic surgery at an alarming rate, and at an increasingly young age, most of it being for cosmetic reasons and not health related. It's only a problem to them when it concerns gender affirmation.
Both types are mostly meant to improve people's mental wellness. One is far more common than the other.
From that I can only conclude that conservatives just don't like transgender people. The bullies among them have found an easy target to push around and villify and they're relentless in their pursuit.
Unlike other people I'm not willing to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt. They're just really really narcissistic about this whole thing, and their arguments are in bad faith.
I think this is a weird misreading to twist conservatives into bad faith.
There is certainly a deeper and bigger suspicion of transgender people as predatory, but I think conservatives have usually been pretty clear that they are opposed to the hypersexual culture and especially when it is targeted at children. Like I think conservatives also disapprove of hypersexual culture in rap culture (e.g. Cardi B's WAP), but this song is clearly not meant for children because there are clean versions for the general public.
I think the counterargument to what you are saying is that nobody would encourage young children to get cis plastic surgery, especially not to enhance or alter their genitals. The FDA has minimum age requirements to get breast or penile implants, for instance.
So I don't deny that there is bad faith in the way that conservatives demonize transgenderism and exaggerate its influence and impact, but plastic surgery is not a good example.
If we'd ask every conservative who's against transitioning, I'd bet a whole lot of them are in favor of plastic surgery for cis people for cosmetic reasons. It would very much surprise me if not. And some of them I'm sure would even be in favor of it for kids. I doubt they'd even oppose growth hormone treatment. I'm 100% convinced it's a double standard. Their outrage over transitioning is them wanting to exert control over a minority, not because they make valid points but simply because they can.
Stuffing your opponents full of straw is easy.
Ask the harder question of falsification: is there a plastic surgery or hormone treatment that conservatives could oppose for children, and you think they make a valid point? For example, they condemn female genital mutilation in Africa and the Middle East. They have condemned various attempts at trans-racial changes, such as mocking Michael Jackson for bleaching his skin or that British guy who tried to make himself Korean.
I stopped giving conservatives the benefit of the doubt regarding transgender people a long time ago. They use dishonest debating tactics all the time and the only thing that can be achieved by arguing with people using such tactics is the delay of actual progress for minority groups. It's better to ignore them and find other ways to get society on board with transitioning programs. You can't change a bigot's mind. Conservatives strictly do not have valid points regarding transgender people. I've read and seen discussions from them for years, and I've found absolutely nothing of validity. Their whole shtick is concern trolling.
You can find news stories on the shortage of adderall because a short tele-health zoom meeting can get you an ADHD diagnosis and an adderall prescription.
It doesn't surprise me that people are profiteering from people's misery.
Yes, and the reason there is an adderrall shortage in the US is not because they can't produce enough of it. I'm sure it's not too difficult to produce. The reason there is a shortage is because it's a controlled substance and the DEA has quotas on how much can be produced. They are refusing to raise the quotas because the prevalence of ADHD has been increasing dramatically and they believe there are a lot of phony diagnoses going around and that need to be straightened out. I agree with them and I also think there are a lot of bullshit diagnoses of ADHD going around for people that want to score some Adderall.
You know what I find more interesting though. Besides me and you talking about this nobody else in this thread seems to care at all. Nobody is here asking why the DEA is getting in between patients and their doctors prescribing medication. Nobody is saying that I'm insulting ADHD patients by saying they are caught up in a social fad. Nobody is proposing alternate theories or rejecting my theory for why the prevalence of ADHD has increased dramatically.
In fact other than DPB talking about Tourette's which by happenstance he is afflicted with, nobody challenged my social contagion theory on a multitude of other conditions. It's only on the one condition where people want to make emotional arguments and trip over themselves to virtue signal their compassion that I've been challenged on. Talk about double standards... Maybe someone should grow a pair and stick up for the kids with ADHD whose experience I'm belittling.
You can find news stories on the shortage of adderall because a short tele-health zoom meeting can get you an ADHD diagnosis and an adderall prescription.
It doesn't surprise me that people are profiteering from people's misery.
Yes, and the reason there is an adderrall shortage in the US is not because they can't produce enough of it. I'm sure it's not too difficult to produce. The reason there is a shortage is because it's a controlled substance and the DEA has quotas on how much can be produced. They are refusing to raise the quotas because the prevalence of ADHD has been increasing dramatically and they believe there are a lot of phony diagnoses going around and that need to be straightened out. I agree with them and I also think there are a lot of bullshit diagnoses of ADHD going around for people that want to score some Adderall.
You know what I find more interesting though. Besides me and you talking about this nobody else in this thread seems to care at all. Nobody is here asking why the DEA is getting in between patients and their doctors prescribing medication. Nobody is saying that I'm insulting ADHD patients by saying they are caught up in a social fad. Nobody is proposing alternate theories or rejecting my theory for why the prevalence of ADHD has increased dramatically.
In fact other than DPB talking about Tourette's which by happenstance he is afflicted with, nobody challenged my social contagion theory on a multitude of other conditions. It's only on the one condition where people want to make emotional arguments and trip over themselves to virtue signal their compassion that I've been challenged on. Talk about double standards... Maybe someone should grow a pair and stick up for the kids with ADHD whose experience I'm belittling.
Talking about trans identity doesn't mean we don't care about ADHD. You're asking everyone to put out a lot of fires at the same time. You listed several hypothetical examples of conditions and identities that may have a social contagion component: POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, Tourette's, anorexia, and being trans.
I don't think this is a case of double standards or apathy; I think it's a case of not having the time or bandwidth to contribute massive posts and multiples discussions towards each one of those, especially when the original point was to draw parallels to being (or becoming) trans. Your original post simply said "POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, just to name a few." If you wanted to go into more detail about any of those in particular, you certainly could (like how you just did with ADHD, in this most recent post I'm responding to), to see if there are any bites at a conversation.
Going to bump this conversation since not much is happening in this thread and I now have some time to lay down some thoughts on this idea that the explosion in transgenderism/non-binary-ism is coming from people that were essentially born that way and society had just been repressing them until now.
Tourette's is just one of many. There are a slew of other mental health illnesses that supposedly increased dramatically during the pandemic and primarily among adolescents. POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, just to name a few. What you have on TikTok is a place where adults have left the room and teens are diagnosing each other and going down these algorithm driven rabbit holes. Then you can easily doctor shop until you get the diagnosis you want. You can find news stories on the shortage of adderall because a short tele-health zoom meeting can get you an ADHD diagnosis and an adderall prescription.
But why are all these teenagers tripping over themselves to try to get diagnosed with ailments? One theory is that it might be related to society telling us that if you're white you're an oppressor. I may be going out on a limb here, but I think not everyone wants to be identified as a little white privileged racist cunt. If you can go from that to being a victim of genocide or a victim of other able-ist bigotry maybe it's a tempting offer.
Another theory is that some people just want attention and clout. If you're average looking with rather average interests and hobbies literally nobody is going to care about you on social media. Having some illness at least gives you a niche that might be somewhat interesting and create that positive feedback loop of receiving more attention and then playing up your niche even harder and so on.
Or.... we could just use the left-handed theory and just assume that marked increases in these illnesses just come from society no longer persecuting them and people are now finally free to display their tics or change their gender. Sure, a plausible theory. To me it doesn't even seem like the most likely. To me the idea that somebody would be so confident in that theory that they have no hesitation in surgically removing the breasts of young women seems insane.
While tics can be indicative of Tourette syndrome, tics can also come about without that specific mental health diagnosis. Stress/anxiety/nervousness, lack of sleep, withdrawal, and other factors can create motor/facial/verbal tics even without having Tourette's. As someone who has Tourette's, I really appreciate your link elaborating on the fact that most cases aren't the extreme "scream curse words" level of Tourette's that many people think is standard.
I can definitely see how new stressors (like dealing with the fallout of a global pandemic) could potentially lead to tics, and even how some impressionable minds could trick themselves via confirmation bias into thinking they might have mental health issues when they see other people with self-diagnosed problems. That being said, I'm not sure if I buy the idea that people are consciously faking Tourette's en masse, just to appear special.
I also don't know if Tourette's, OCD, or PTSD parallels transgenderism particularly well. For example, if there was an actual cure for my Tourette's - which there isn't - I'd be first in line, but I'm not really experiencing a tremendous amount of social pressure or condemnation or anti-Tourette legislation. On the other hand, I think the trans community is looking more for cultural acceptance and validation, and the opportunity to make their own medical decisions and avoid anti-trans laws.
"Faking it" is not the correct characterization of my argument. I don't think anyone is faking anything to be oppressed or faking anything for clout. I would call these things subliminal incentives or catalysts. Our minds are impressionable indeed, young minds even more so. It's why billions of dollars are spent on advertising. It's why placebos can heal people. It's why people with conversion disorder can be unable to walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs. You wouldn't say that somebody that can't walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs was "faking it."
When you see a bunch of different ailments that are increasing significantly in prevalence and manifesting in ways we don't typically see you need an explanation. Some illnesses that were typically more prevalent in males are now more prevalent in females. Some illnesses that typically first surfaced in early childhood are now surfacing acutely in adolescent girls. Amazing coincidences. Sure you could have a different theory to explain each of these, e.g. less repression of transgendered people means more people feel comfortable coming out and more stress during the pandemic means more people are developing tics, etc. Or you could just have the one theory that explains it all - that this is primarily driven by social contagion related to the rise in Tiktok and social media. Occam's razor applies.
The woman in this video is far more eloquent than I am and I think she makes a good argument. Starts at 15:30 in this video and is about 7 minutes in length
I didn't think you were making any "argument" in particular. You listed a few competing hypotheses, and I reflected on them. The video clip brings in anorexia as yet another parallel, so now we're comparing trans identity to Tourette's, POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, and anorexia. I'm still not sure what the point is, here. If you're making an actual argument (not that you have to be, but you're claiming to be arguing something), what is it?
My argument is that there are a lot of people that are convinced that if you have gender dysphoria it was merely something you were born and it may decide to show up whenever. The evidence for that is very weak. Some of us think there is a social contagion aspect and if there is then parents are right to be concerned with what their children are exposed to.
I went to elementary school myself. I'm sure you did too. When I was there I don't remember being taught that I could be a girl if I wanted to. Or I could be both. Or neither. Or that me having a penis maybe means I'm a boy but it could mean anything. I don't remember my elementary school hosting gender resource fairs.
The idea that only one side is leading this culture war is quite wrong. Pushing back against teaching gender ideology to young impressionable children does not make you the de facto aggressor.
To convince other people of your opinion you're going to need more than just "I feel" and finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. Show evidence of a social contagion before you insist that it must be true to others.
Otherwise it's just insulting to these groups to imply that they're just glomming onto a fad, instead of grappling with exactly who they are and what that means to them.
I didn't say it must be true. I said I think it's the most plausible theory. On the other hand you are the one that said you "guarantee" that my theory is wrong and yours is the correct one despite offering no evidence yourself. That takes quite a bit of nerve, don't you think?
It shouldn't be up to a layperson to decide what they think is the most plausible theory. It should be easy to go find studies that tell us what is the most plausible theory.
Gender identity is an important issue in society, yet its causative mechanism is poorly understood. The main anatomical differences between males and females are the genitalia and the brain. This paper reviewed the literature to explore the link between genetic influences and brain development, and their impact on gender identity. Investigating these developmental mechanisms could lead to advances in the understanding of gender dysphoria, a condition whereby an individual’s gender and biological sex are mismatched. Exploring the biochemical development of the genitalia highlights the differences between males and females, notably how testosterone elicits the pathways of male development in an embryo. When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity. Further research is required to shed light on the molecular mechanism of this, allowing for greater education and understanding of this scientific and social phenomenon.
Essentially according to this review there seems to be a biological/genetic component to gender dysphoria, which would certainly throw doubt on the 'social contagion' theory, and definitely undermines the idea that it is the 'most plausible' theory.
Yes, a biological component to gender dysphoria. Component meaning one of of numerous parts. Nobody would argue that gender dysphoria is strictly a biological phenomenon. In fact, here's a sentence from your own source:
However, GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain.
Despite NewSunshine's confidence, we don't know what causes gender dysphoria.
See what you want to do is apply selective listening here and completely ignore the environmental and cultural variables and only consider the biological variable. NewSunshine's theory posits that one's gender identity is unmalleable and the # of transgendered people is fixed and the only reason we are seeing more is merely because more transgendered people are willing to become uncloseted.
In other words, my theory offers room for biological components to gender identity and NewSunShine's theory doesn't offer room for environmental/cultural components to gender identity.
But surely your theory is that the only reason so many people are coming out as trans is that other people are doing it. That's what social contagion means isn't it?
No. The verbiage I used is "social contagion aspect." Aspect meaning a part. People have come out as trans long before I would have considered a social contagion to have existed. There's an organic base rate and there's this new rate that is quite higher. The question is what's causing the difference between the rate we saw 15 years ago vs the rate we see now. See, my theory can fit NewSunshine's theory in it. I'm not saying every single new trans person is jumping on a social contagion. I would say it's a significant amount though.
Otherwise you can't assume that social contagion, in this case, isn't actually a very good thing. Think about it: If there's a biological basis for gender dysphoria, then the only thing STOPPING those people from coming out as trans are social/environmental conditions. Now, lets assume (I'm not looking up and reading more studies right now) living with gender dysphoria and not doing anything about it is harmful to an individual's mental health. I think that's a fair assumption to make. Surely if the social contagion is caused by more support, acceptance and less harmful, controlling behaviour on the part of society, then the social aspect is going to be a huge positive for society in general.
Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding this paragraph.
I'm not applying selective listening in the slightest bit. The prior cause here is biological. That's undeniable. It happens from birth. So given that information, we have the choice to simply pretend that that isn't true, and force people to ignore their own biology, or have the social mechanisms in place to actually help these people, and that's what you seem to be objecting to, instead simply ignoring the biological aspect and pretending its just a meme.
what do you mean the cause is biological and it's undeniable and it happens from birth? Didn't I just quote your own source that says GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Are you now rejecting your own evidence?
On May 17 2023 11:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
While tics can be indicative of Tourette syndrome, tics can also come about without that specific mental health diagnosis. Stress/anxiety/nervousness, lack of sleep, withdrawal, and other factors can create motor/facial/verbal tics even without having Tourette's. As someone who has Tourette's, I really appreciate your link elaborating on the fact that most cases aren't the extreme "scream curse words" level of Tourette's that many people think is standard.
I can definitely see how new stressors (like dealing with the fallout of a global pandemic) could potentially lead to tics, and even how some impressionable minds could trick themselves via confirmation bias into thinking they might have mental health issues when they see other people with self-diagnosed problems. That being said, I'm not sure if I buy the idea that people are consciously faking Tourette's en masse, just to appear special.
I also don't know if Tourette's, OCD, or PTSD parallels transgenderism particularly well. For example, if there was an actual cure for my Tourette's - which there isn't - I'd be first in line, but I'm not really experiencing a tremendous amount of social pressure or condemnation or anti-Tourette legislation. On the other hand, I think the trans community is looking more for cultural acceptance and validation, and the opportunity to make their own medical decisions and avoid anti-trans laws.
"Faking it" is not the correct characterization of my argument. I don't think anyone is faking anything to be oppressed or faking anything for clout. I would call these things subliminal incentives or catalysts. Our minds are impressionable indeed, young minds even more so. It's why billions of dollars are spent on advertising. It's why placebos can heal people. It's why people with conversion disorder can be unable to walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs. You wouldn't say that somebody that can't walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs was "faking it."
When you see a bunch of different ailments that are increasing significantly in prevalence and manifesting in ways we don't typically see you need an explanation. Some illnesses that were typically more prevalent in males are now more prevalent in females. Some illnesses that typically first surfaced in early childhood are now surfacing acutely in adolescent girls. Amazing coincidences. Sure you could have a different theory to explain each of these, e.g. less repression of transgendered people means more people feel comfortable coming out and more stress during the pandemic means more people are developing tics, etc. Or you could just have the one theory that explains it all - that this is primarily driven by social contagion related to the rise in Tiktok and social media. Occam's razor applies.
The woman in this video is far more eloquent than I am and I think she makes a good argument. Starts at 15:30 in this video and is about 7 minutes in length
I didn't think you were making any "argument" in particular. You listed a few competing hypotheses, and I reflected on them. The video clip brings in anorexia as yet another parallel, so now we're comparing trans identity to Tourette's, POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, and anorexia. I'm still not sure what the point is, here. If you're making an actual argument (not that you have to be, but you're claiming to be arguing something), what is it?
My argument is that there are a lot of people that are convinced that if you have gender dysphoria it was merely something you were born and it may decide to show up whenever. The evidence for that is very weak. Some of us think there is a social contagion aspect and if there is then parents are right to be concerned with what their children are exposed to.
I went to elementary school myself. I'm sure you did too. When I was there I don't remember being taught that I could be a girl if I wanted to. Or I could be both. Or neither. Or that me having a penis maybe means I'm a boy but it could mean anything. I don't remember my elementary school hosting gender resource fairs.
The idea that only one side is leading this culture war is quite wrong. Pushing back against teaching gender ideology to young impressionable children does not make you the de facto aggressor.
To convince other people of your opinion you're going to need more than just "I feel" and finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. Show evidence of a social contagion before you insist that it must be true to others.
Otherwise it's just insulting to these groups to imply that they're just glomming onto a fad, instead of grappling with exactly who they are and what that means to them.
I didn't say it must be true. I said I think it's the most plausible theory. On the other hand you are the one that said you "guarantee" that my theory is wrong and yours is the correct one despite offering no evidence yourself. That takes quite a bit of nerve, don't you think?
It shouldn't be up to a layperson to decide what they think is the most plausible theory. It should be easy to go find studies that tell us what is the most plausible theory.
Gender identity is an important issue in society, yet its causative mechanism is poorly understood. The main anatomical differences between males and females are the genitalia and the brain. This paper reviewed the literature to explore the link between genetic influences and brain development, and their impact on gender identity. Investigating these developmental mechanisms could lead to advances in the understanding of gender dysphoria, a condition whereby an individual’s gender and biological sex are mismatched. Exploring the biochemical development of the genitalia highlights the differences between males and females, notably how testosterone elicits the pathways of male development in an embryo. When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity. Further research is required to shed light on the molecular mechanism of this, allowing for greater education and understanding of this scientific and social phenomenon.
Essentially according to this review there seems to be a biological/genetic component to gender dysphoria, which would certainly throw doubt on the 'social contagion' theory, and definitely undermines the idea that it is the 'most plausible' theory.
Yes, a biological component to gender dysphoria. Component meaning one of of numerous parts. Nobody would argue that gender dysphoria is strictly a biological phenomenon. In fact, here's a sentence from your own source:
However, GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain.
Despite NewSunshine's confidence, we don't know what causes gender dysphoria.
See what you want to do is apply selective listening here and completely ignore the environmental and cultural variables and only consider the biological variable. NewSunshine's theory posits that one's gender identity is unmalleable and the # of transgendered people is fixed and the only reason we are seeing more is merely because more transgendered people are willing to become uncloseted.
In other words, my theory offers room for biological components to gender identity and NewSunShine's theory doesn't offer room for environmental/cultural components to gender identity.
But surely your theory is that the only reason so many people are coming out as trans is that other people are doing it. That's what social contagion means isn't it?
No. The verbiage I used is "social contagion aspect." Aspect meaning a part. People have come out as trans long before I would have considered a social contagion to have existed. There's an organic base rate and there's this new rate that is quite higher. The question is what's causing the difference between the rate we saw 15 years ago vs the rate we see now. See, my theory can fit NewSunshine's theory in it. I'm not saying every single new trans person is jumping on a social contagion. I would say it's a significant amount though.
Otherwise you can't assume that social contagion, in this case, isn't actually a very good thing. Think about it: If there's a biological basis for gender dysphoria, then the only thing STOPPING those people from coming out as trans are social/environmental conditions. Now, lets assume (I'm not looking up and reading more studies right now) living with gender dysphoria and not doing anything about it is harmful to an individual's mental health. I think that's a fair assumption to make. Surely if the social contagion is caused by more support, acceptance and less harmful, controlling behaviour on the part of society, then the social aspect is going to be a huge positive for society in general.
Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding this paragraph.
I'm not applying selective listening in the slightest bit. The prior cause here is biological. That's undeniable. It happens from birth. So given that information, we have the choice to simply pretend that that isn't true, and force people to ignore their own biology, or have the social mechanisms in place to actually help these people, and that's what you seem to be objecting to, instead simply ignoring the biological aspect and pretending its just a meme.
what do you mean the cause is biological and it's undeniable and it happens from birth? Didn't I just quote your own source that says GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Are you now rejecting your own evidence?
The biological aspect of this is partly genetic in nature. It happens from birth. It is already there by the time any social/environmental conditions have an effect. Therefore, as I said and you misquoted the PRIOR cause is biological.
The social aspect here, in the paragraph you don't understand, is that society has become much less punishing and more accepting for those that choose to act on their gender dysphoria, so more people are coming out. You have decided to choose to characterize this as people pretending to be trans or just following a fad. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Even the wiki link you gave makes it pretty clear that the social and cultural aspects of this are related to how trans people are treated in relation to how many act on their dysphoria or report it.
As for your first paragraph, you'd have to provide some evidence that the 'organic base rate' of people coming out as trans is somehow innate to every society and not a function of the number of trans people being suppressed by harsh societal conditions.
"Faking it" is not the correct characterization of my argument. I don't think anyone is faking anything to be oppressed or faking anything for clout. I would call these things subliminal incentives or catalysts. Our minds are impressionable indeed, young minds even more so. It's why billions of dollars are spent on advertising. It's why placebos can heal people. It's why people with conversion disorder can be unable to walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs. You wouldn't say that somebody that can't walk despite nothing being wrong with their legs was "faking it."
When you see a bunch of different ailments that are increasing significantly in prevalence and manifesting in ways we don't typically see you need an explanation. Some illnesses that were typically more prevalent in males are now more prevalent in females. Some illnesses that typically first surfaced in early childhood are now surfacing acutely in adolescent girls. Amazing coincidences. Sure you could have a different theory to explain each of these, e.g. less repression of transgendered people means more people feel comfortable coming out and more stress during the pandemic means more people are developing tics, etc. Or you could just have the one theory that explains it all - that this is primarily driven by social contagion related to the rise in Tiktok and social media. Occam's razor applies.
The woman in this video is far more eloquent than I am and I think she makes a good argument. Starts at 15:30 in this video and is about 7 minutes in length
I didn't think you were making any "argument" in particular. You listed a few competing hypotheses, and I reflected on them. The video clip brings in anorexia as yet another parallel, so now we're comparing trans identity to Tourette's, POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, and anorexia. I'm still not sure what the point is, here. If you're making an actual argument (not that you have to be, but you're claiming to be arguing something), what is it?
My argument is that there are a lot of people that are convinced that if you have gender dysphoria it was merely something you were born and it may decide to show up whenever. The evidence for that is very weak. Some of us think there is a social contagion aspect and if there is then parents are right to be concerned with what their children are exposed to.
I went to elementary school myself. I'm sure you did too. When I was there I don't remember being taught that I could be a girl if I wanted to. Or I could be both. Or neither. Or that me having a penis maybe means I'm a boy but it could mean anything. I don't remember my elementary school hosting gender resource fairs.
The idea that only one side is leading this culture war is quite wrong. Pushing back against teaching gender ideology to young impressionable children does not make you the de facto aggressor.
To convince other people of your opinion you're going to need more than just "I feel" and finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. Show evidence of a social contagion before you insist that it must be true to others.
Otherwise it's just insulting to these groups to imply that they're just glomming onto a fad, instead of grappling with exactly who they are and what that means to them.
I didn't say it must be true. I said I think it's the most plausible theory. On the other hand you are the one that said you "guarantee" that my theory is wrong and yours is the correct one despite offering no evidence yourself. That takes quite a bit of nerve, don't you think?
It shouldn't be up to a layperson to decide what they think is the most plausible theory. It should be easy to go find studies that tell us what is the most plausible theory.
Gender identity is an important issue in society, yet its causative mechanism is poorly understood. The main anatomical differences between males and females are the genitalia and the brain. This paper reviewed the literature to explore the link between genetic influences and brain development, and their impact on gender identity. Investigating these developmental mechanisms could lead to advances in the understanding of gender dysphoria, a condition whereby an individual’s gender and biological sex are mismatched. Exploring the biochemical development of the genitalia highlights the differences between males and females, notably how testosterone elicits the pathways of male development in an embryo. When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity. Further research is required to shed light on the molecular mechanism of this, allowing for greater education and understanding of this scientific and social phenomenon.
Essentially according to this review there seems to be a biological/genetic component to gender dysphoria, which would certainly throw doubt on the 'social contagion' theory, and definitely undermines the idea that it is the 'most plausible' theory.
Yes, a biological component to gender dysphoria. Component meaning one of of numerous parts. Nobody would argue that gender dysphoria is strictly a biological phenomenon. In fact, here's a sentence from your own source:
However, GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain.
Despite NewSunshine's confidence, we don't know what causes gender dysphoria.
See what you want to do is apply selective listening here and completely ignore the environmental and cultural variables and only consider the biological variable. NewSunshine's theory posits that one's gender identity is unmalleable and the # of transgendered people is fixed and the only reason we are seeing more is merely because more transgendered people are willing to become uncloseted.
In other words, my theory offers room for biological components to gender identity and NewSunShine's theory doesn't offer room for environmental/cultural components to gender identity.
But surely your theory is that the only reason so many people are coming out as trans is that other people are doing it. That's what social contagion means isn't it?
No. The verbiage I used is "social contagion aspect." Aspect meaning a part. People have come out as trans long before I would have considered a social contagion to have existed. There's an organic base rate and there's this new rate that is quite higher. The question is what's causing the difference between the rate we saw 15 years ago vs the rate we see now. See, my theory can fit NewSunshine's theory in it. I'm not saying every single new trans person is jumping on a social contagion. I would say it's a significant amount though.
Otherwise you can't assume that social contagion, in this case, isn't actually a very good thing. Think about it: If there's a biological basis for gender dysphoria, then the only thing STOPPING those people from coming out as trans are social/environmental conditions. Now, lets assume (I'm not looking up and reading more studies right now) living with gender dysphoria and not doing anything about it is harmful to an individual's mental health. I think that's a fair assumption to make. Surely if the social contagion is caused by more support, acceptance and less harmful, controlling behaviour on the part of society, then the social aspect is going to be a huge positive for society in general.
Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding this paragraph.
I'm not applying selective listening in the slightest bit. The prior cause here is biological. That's undeniable. It happens from birth. So given that information, we have the choice to simply pretend that that isn't true, and force people to ignore their own biology, or have the social mechanisms in place to actually help these people, and that's what you seem to be objecting to, instead simply ignoring the biological aspect and pretending its just a meme.
what do you mean the cause is biological and it's undeniable and it happens from birth? Didn't I just quote your own source that says GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Are you now rejecting your own evidence?
The biological aspect of this is partly genetic in nature. It happens from birth. It is already there by the time any social/environmental conditions have an effect. Therefore, as I said and you misquoted the PRIOR cause is biological.
The social aspect here, in the paragraph you don't understand, is that society has become much less punishing and more accepting for those that choose to act on their gender dysphoria, so more people are coming out. You have decided to choose to characterize this as people pretending to be trans or just following a fad. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Even the wiki link you gave makes it pretty clear that the social and cultural aspects of this are related to how trans people are treated in relation to how many act on their dysphoria or report it.
As for your first paragraph, you'd have to provide some evidence that the 'organic base rate' of people coming out as trans is somehow innate to every society and not a function of the number of trans people being suppressed by harsh societal conditions.
Can you clarify what specifically "happens from birth"
On May 17 2023 20:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: [quote]
I didn't think you were making any "argument" in particular. You listed a few competing hypotheses, and I reflected on them. The video clip brings in anorexia as yet another parallel, so now we're comparing trans identity to Tourette's, POTS, OCD, ADHD, PTSD, and anorexia. I'm still not sure what the point is, here. If you're making an actual argument (not that you have to be, but you're claiming to be arguing something), what is it?
My argument is that there are a lot of people that are convinced that if you have gender dysphoria it was merely something you were born and it may decide to show up whenever. The evidence for that is very weak. Some of us think there is a social contagion aspect and if there is then parents are right to be concerned with what their children are exposed to.
I went to elementary school myself. I'm sure you did too. When I was there I don't remember being taught that I could be a girl if I wanted to. Or I could be both. Or neither. Or that me having a penis maybe means I'm a boy but it could mean anything. I don't remember my elementary school hosting gender resource fairs.
The idea that only one side is leading this culture war is quite wrong. Pushing back against teaching gender ideology to young impressionable children does not make you the de facto aggressor.
To convince other people of your opinion you're going to need more than just "I feel" and finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. Show evidence of a social contagion before you insist that it must be true to others.
Otherwise it's just insulting to these groups to imply that they're just glomming onto a fad, instead of grappling with exactly who they are and what that means to them.
I didn't say it must be true. I said I think it's the most plausible theory. On the other hand you are the one that said you "guarantee" that my theory is wrong and yours is the correct one despite offering no evidence yourself. That takes quite a bit of nerve, don't you think?
It shouldn't be up to a layperson to decide what they think is the most plausible theory. It should be easy to go find studies that tell us what is the most plausible theory.
Gender identity is an important issue in society, yet its causative mechanism is poorly understood. The main anatomical differences between males and females are the genitalia and the brain. This paper reviewed the literature to explore the link between genetic influences and brain development, and their impact on gender identity. Investigating these developmental mechanisms could lead to advances in the understanding of gender dysphoria, a condition whereby an individual’s gender and biological sex are mismatched. Exploring the biochemical development of the genitalia highlights the differences between males and females, notably how testosterone elicits the pathways of male development in an embryo. When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity. Further research is required to shed light on the molecular mechanism of this, allowing for greater education and understanding of this scientific and social phenomenon.
Essentially according to this review there seems to be a biological/genetic component to gender dysphoria, which would certainly throw doubt on the 'social contagion' theory, and definitely undermines the idea that it is the 'most plausible' theory.
Yes, a biological component to gender dysphoria. Component meaning one of of numerous parts. Nobody would argue that gender dysphoria is strictly a biological phenomenon. In fact, here's a sentence from your own source:
However, GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain.
Despite NewSunshine's confidence, we don't know what causes gender dysphoria.
See what you want to do is apply selective listening here and completely ignore the environmental and cultural variables and only consider the biological variable. NewSunshine's theory posits that one's gender identity is unmalleable and the # of transgendered people is fixed and the only reason we are seeing more is merely because more transgendered people are willing to become uncloseted.
In other words, my theory offers room for biological components to gender identity and NewSunShine's theory doesn't offer room for environmental/cultural components to gender identity.
But surely your theory is that the only reason so many people are coming out as trans is that other people are doing it. That's what social contagion means isn't it?
No. The verbiage I used is "social contagion aspect." Aspect meaning a part. People have come out as trans long before I would have considered a social contagion to have existed. There's an organic base rate and there's this new rate that is quite higher. The question is what's causing the difference between the rate we saw 15 years ago vs the rate we see now. See, my theory can fit NewSunshine's theory in it. I'm not saying every single new trans person is jumping on a social contagion. I would say it's a significant amount though.
Otherwise you can't assume that social contagion, in this case, isn't actually a very good thing. Think about it: If there's a biological basis for gender dysphoria, then the only thing STOPPING those people from coming out as trans are social/environmental conditions. Now, lets assume (I'm not looking up and reading more studies right now) living with gender dysphoria and not doing anything about it is harmful to an individual's mental health. I think that's a fair assumption to make. Surely if the social contagion is caused by more support, acceptance and less harmful, controlling behaviour on the part of society, then the social aspect is going to be a huge positive for society in general.
Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding this paragraph.
I'm not applying selective listening in the slightest bit. The prior cause here is biological. That's undeniable. It happens from birth. So given that information, we have the choice to simply pretend that that isn't true, and force people to ignore their own biology, or have the social mechanisms in place to actually help these people, and that's what you seem to be objecting to, instead simply ignoring the biological aspect and pretending its just a meme.
what do you mean the cause is biological and it's undeniable and it happens from birth? Didn't I just quote your own source that says GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Are you now rejecting your own evidence?
The biological aspect of this is partly genetic in nature. It happens from birth. It is already there by the time any social/environmental conditions have an effect. Therefore, as I said and you misquoted the PRIOR cause is biological.
The social aspect here, in the paragraph you don't understand, is that society has become much less punishing and more accepting for those that choose to act on their gender dysphoria, so more people are coming out. You have decided to choose to characterize this as people pretending to be trans or just following a fad. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Even the wiki link you gave makes it pretty clear that the social and cultural aspects of this are related to how trans people are treated in relation to how many act on their dysphoria or report it.
As for your first paragraph, you'd have to provide some evidence that the 'organic base rate' of people coming out as trans is somehow innate to every society and not a function of the number of trans people being suppressed by harsh societal conditions.
Can you clarify what specifically "happens from birth"
The genetic factors that lead to the brain structure being mismatched with the assigned gender, as detailed in the study review i linked.
My argument is that there are a lot of people that are convinced that if you have gender dysphoria it was merely something you were born and it may decide to show up whenever. The evidence for that is very weak. Some of us think there is a social contagion aspect and if there is then parents are right to be concerned with what their children are exposed to.
I went to elementary school myself. I'm sure you did too. When I was there I don't remember being taught that I could be a girl if I wanted to. Or I could be both. Or neither. Or that me having a penis maybe means I'm a boy but it could mean anything. I don't remember my elementary school hosting gender resource fairs.
The idea that only one side is leading this culture war is quite wrong. Pushing back against teaching gender ideology to young impressionable children does not make you the de facto aggressor.
To convince other people of your opinion you're going to need more than just "I feel" and finding someone on the internet who agrees with you. Show evidence of a social contagion before you insist that it must be true to others.
Otherwise it's just insulting to these groups to imply that they're just glomming onto a fad, instead of grappling with exactly who they are and what that means to them.
I didn't say it must be true. I said I think it's the most plausible theory. On the other hand you are the one that said you "guarantee" that my theory is wrong and yours is the correct one despite offering no evidence yourself. That takes quite a bit of nerve, don't you think?
It shouldn't be up to a layperson to decide what they think is the most plausible theory. It should be easy to go find studies that tell us what is the most plausible theory.
Gender identity is an important issue in society, yet its causative mechanism is poorly understood. The main anatomical differences between males and females are the genitalia and the brain. This paper reviewed the literature to explore the link between genetic influences and brain development, and their impact on gender identity. Investigating these developmental mechanisms could lead to advances in the understanding of gender dysphoria, a condition whereby an individual’s gender and biological sex are mismatched. Exploring the biochemical development of the genitalia highlights the differences between males and females, notably how testosterone elicits the pathways of male development in an embryo. When research has been conducted in people with Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, a condition where the testosterone receptor is mutated and faulty, and thus cannot function, gender dysphoria is observed as the body is genetically male but anatomically female. It is known that the structure of male and female brains differs; it is found that people with gender dysphoria have a brain structure more comparable to the gender to which they identify. The review of the literature suggests that there is a disparity between the brains of those who identify differently to their assigned gender at birth, highlighting a multifactorial underpinning of the gender identity. Further research is required to shed light on the molecular mechanism of this, allowing for greater education and understanding of this scientific and social phenomenon.
Essentially according to this review there seems to be a biological/genetic component to gender dysphoria, which would certainly throw doubt on the 'social contagion' theory, and definitely undermines the idea that it is the 'most plausible' theory.
Yes, a biological component to gender dysphoria. Component meaning one of of numerous parts. Nobody would argue that gender dysphoria is strictly a biological phenomenon. In fact, here's a sentence from your own source:
However, GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain.
Despite NewSunshine's confidence, we don't know what causes gender dysphoria.
See what you want to do is apply selective listening here and completely ignore the environmental and cultural variables and only consider the biological variable. NewSunshine's theory posits that one's gender identity is unmalleable and the # of transgendered people is fixed and the only reason we are seeing more is merely because more transgendered people are willing to become uncloseted.
In other words, my theory offers room for biological components to gender identity and NewSunShine's theory doesn't offer room for environmental/cultural components to gender identity.
But surely your theory is that the only reason so many people are coming out as trans is that other people are doing it. That's what social contagion means isn't it?
No. The verbiage I used is "social contagion aspect." Aspect meaning a part. People have come out as trans long before I would have considered a social contagion to have existed. There's an organic base rate and there's this new rate that is quite higher. The question is what's causing the difference between the rate we saw 15 years ago vs the rate we see now. See, my theory can fit NewSunshine's theory in it. I'm not saying every single new trans person is jumping on a social contagion. I would say it's a significant amount though.
Otherwise you can't assume that social contagion, in this case, isn't actually a very good thing. Think about it: If there's a biological basis for gender dysphoria, then the only thing STOPPING those people from coming out as trans are social/environmental conditions. Now, lets assume (I'm not looking up and reading more studies right now) living with gender dysphoria and not doing anything about it is harmful to an individual's mental health. I think that's a fair assumption to make. Surely if the social contagion is caused by more support, acceptance and less harmful, controlling behaviour on the part of society, then the social aspect is going to be a huge positive for society in general.
Sorry, I am having difficulty understanding this paragraph.
I'm not applying selective listening in the slightest bit. The prior cause here is biological. That's undeniable. It happens from birth. So given that information, we have the choice to simply pretend that that isn't true, and force people to ignore their own biology, or have the social mechanisms in place to actually help these people, and that's what you seem to be objecting to, instead simply ignoring the biological aspect and pretending its just a meme.
what do you mean the cause is biological and it's undeniable and it happens from birth? Didn't I just quote your own source that says GD is a multifactorial condition which biology alone cannot fully explain. Are you now rejecting your own evidence?
The biological aspect of this is partly genetic in nature. It happens from birth. It is already there by the time any social/environmental conditions have an effect. Therefore, as I said and you misquoted the PRIOR cause is biological.
The social aspect here, in the paragraph you don't understand, is that society has become much less punishing and more accepting for those that choose to act on their gender dysphoria, so more people are coming out. You have decided to choose to characterize this as people pretending to be trans or just following a fad. There is absolutely no evidence for that. Even the wiki link you gave makes it pretty clear that the social and cultural aspects of this are related to how trans people are treated in relation to how many act on their dysphoria or report it.
As for your first paragraph, you'd have to provide some evidence that the 'organic base rate' of people coming out as trans is somehow innate to every society and not a function of the number of trans people being suppressed by harsh societal conditions.
Can you clarify what specifically "happens from birth"
The genetic factors that lead to the brain structure being mismatched with the assigned gender, as detailed in the study review i linked.
Now I just have so many more questions though.
Is this also true for genderfluid people whose identity shifts back and forth? Does the brain structure change back and forth?
How about non-binary people that don't identify as either male or female? Do they have their own brain structure as well?
Or what about two-spirit people which the Cleveland Clinic defines as
A Native American, First Nations or Alaska Natives person who identifies as a third gender who has a male spirit and female spirit.
Is there something unique about the biology of Native American, First Nations, or Alaska Natives that genetically predisposes them to becoming two-spirit assuming that society doesn't sufficiently repress them?
On May 18 2023 17:56 Magic Powers wrote: Conservatives aren't making a big fuss over cis people getting plastic surgery at an alarming rate, and at an increasingly young age, most of it being for cosmetic reasons and not health related. It's only a problem to them when it concerns gender affirmation.
Both types are mostly meant to improve people's mental wellness. One is far more common than the other.
From that I can only conclude that conservatives just don't like transgender people. The bullies among them have found an easy target to push around and villify and they're relentless in their pursuit.
Unlike other people I'm not willing to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt. They're just really really narcissistic about this whole thing, and their arguments are in bad faith.
I think this is a weird misreading to twist conservatives into bad faith.
There is certainly a deeper and bigger suspicion of transgender people as predatory, but I think conservatives have usually been pretty clear that they are opposed to the hypersexual culture and especially when it is targeted at children. Like I think conservatives also disapprove of hypersexual culture in rap culture (e.g. Cardi B's WAP), but this song is clearly not meant for children because there are clean versions for the general public.
I think the counterargument to what you are saying is that nobody would encourage young children to get cis plastic surgery, especially not to enhance or alter their genitals. The FDA has minimum age requirements to get breast or penile implants, for instance.
So I don't deny that there is bad faith in the way that conservatives demonize transgenderism and exaggerate its influence and impact, but plastic surgery is not a good example.
Are these the same conservatives that are lowering the age of marriage, pushing for a greater role for religious groups that molest kids in the raising of kids, singing along to Jailbait by Ted Nugent, and are constantly in the news for diddling kids? The ones that elected Roy Moore and Matt Gaetz knowing that they’re sexual predators that target kids? The same ones that prioritize not teaching kids about consent or giving them the language and resources to report assault? The ones led by the Epstein associate who openly laughed about how the thing he and Epstein had in common are girls in that they both liked them young?
Conservatives have been extremely clear that they’re pro diddling kids. It’s part of their culture war. They’re all about it.
Let me ask one last question for everyone in the thread before I bugger off. Some studies show that quite a few children with gender dysphoria desist in their thoughts by the time they reach adulthood. For example this study of 139 boys followed through to adulthood.
Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters
Most of them just ended up becoming gay men. Can anyone offer an explanation of what caused the gender dysphoric thoughts in the children and then why they subsequently ceased later in life.
On May 18 2023 22:21 BlackJack wrote: Let me ask one last question for everyone in the thread before I bugger off. Some studies show that quite a few children with gender dysphoria desist in their thoughts by the time they reach adulthood. For example this study of 139 boys followed through to adulthood.
Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters
Most of them just ended up becoming gay men. Can anyone offer an explanation of what caused the gender dysphoric thoughts in the children and then why they subsequently ceased later in life.
Gender is a social construct, unlike sex. They’re attracted to men and are told by society that within our gender roles that sex with men is what females do and that sex with women is what males do. They naturally wonder “is my attraction to men a female trait?”
It’s not super complicated. Would have been fixed if there had been exposure to the existence of homosexual relationships at some point in their environment but Conservatives hate that.
That's the kind of question I can get behind. I know of a case of a woman who said she figured out that she was lesbian after a several years long journey of acting in the role of a man. It's definitely a thing, and it should be harmless in the majority of cases.
I'd also like to add that there's something that people with GD have in common with cis people: many of them also don't understand GD. They're figuring it out as they go. Consequentially the research has to keep up with the muddy nature of the information coming from transgender people. Science is about making sense of it all, but it's hard to make sense of something that is so abstract and complicated as the concept of gender. The individual experience is a whole different ballgame from textbook knowledge.
On May 18 2023 22:21 BlackJack wrote: Let me ask one last question for everyone in the thread before I bugger off. Some studies show that quite a few children with gender dysphoria desist in their thoughts by the time they reach adulthood. For example this study of 139 boys followed through to adulthood.
Of the 139 participants, 17 (12.2%) were classified as persisters and the remaining 122 (87.8%) were classified as desisters
Most of them just ended up becoming gay men. Can anyone offer an explanation of what caused the gender dysphoric thoughts in the children and then why they subsequently ceased later in life.
Because children spend their childhood discovering themselves...
Is this supposed to be some new revelation? How many children want to astronauts when they are 6, and how many still want it when they are 18? Does that mean we should stop telling them about astronauts when they are young?
Children have feelings that they don't know what they mean, and its hard to advise them and figure out what its about because communicating feelings is incredibly difficulty. So yes a lot of times your going to have "what does this feeling mean, does it mean I feel more like a boy/girl then a girl/boy despite having X sexual organ" and have it end up being something else.
That is what growing up it all about no? discovering who you are and where you stand.
But that doesn't mean that you should hide such things from children. Let them know, help them deal with it and find out who they are. Its not for nothing that a lot of gender reassignment is held off on until they are adults.
But conservatives aren't saying that we should help children find the personal truth of their feelings, they just want to hide the option from them so they spend their entire childhood wondering wtf is going on with them and why they feel 'different' to what the big wise man is telling them they should feel.
EPT
