• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Using unsanctioned prounouns for FL4K on the Borderland 3 forums will get you banned.

Rhysser

Banned
You can't medicate because you're locked in after critical development? You can't be serious! Now i have to ask - what is your background? Because it seems you have little grasp of how all of this works.

Again, you are putting words in my mouth. First of all, re-wiring the brain post those key development period is in fact not possible with our current level of technology. Development works in stages, the big outcomes of which are generally irreversible by any means available to us, and brains become more and more static and fossilized.

Second of all, you can certainly attempt any number of medications as treatment, but these are very crude types of tools with very limited efficacy. Any sort of treatment for this type of thing is both exceedingly difficult, mostly offers very limited results, AND is often riddled with horrific side effects . So all we can do is change the various chemical balances in the brain, but we can't do much to change the physical structure short of lesioning pieces out, and this is where many mental disorders originate. It is why it is hard to "cure" mental disorders of ANY type, and medications only have limited effectiveness.

There is a reason why people go to such extreme lengths as having sex reassignment surgery. No one opts for this as a first option. It's because there just aren't any existing alternatives that are effective.

Of course, when you come up with the medication that "cures" this without causing worse problems, we might be having a different discussion at that time. Though I still would leave that decision to be made by the transgendered person and their doctors. And if they didn't choose the "treatment" it would still be trivial for me to respect their pronoun choices. It's just silly to be petty about this.




Since you asked, I am a Neuroscientist :D Of course, this is the internet, so we're probably all a bunch of Neuroscientists having this discussion, as the case often is. Though, in my case I'm willing to have a mod verify this :D
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Member
Again, you are putting words in my mouth. First of all, re-wiring the brain post those key development period is in fact not possible with our current level of technology. Development works in stages, the big outcomes of which are generally irreversible by any means available to us, and brains become more and more static and fossilized.

Second of all, you can certainly attempt any number of medications as treatment, but these are very crude types of tools with very limited efficacy. Any sort of treatment for this type of thing is both exceedingly difficult, mostly offers very limited results, AND is often riddled with horrific side effects . So all we can do is change the various chemical balances in the brain, but we can't do much to change the physical structure short of lesioning pieces out, and this is where many mental disorders originate. It is why it is hard to "cure" mental disorders of ANY type, and medications only have limited effectiveness.

There is a reason why people go to such extreme lengths as having sex reassignment surgery. No one opts for this as a first option. It's because there just aren't any existing alternatives that are effective.

Of course, when you come up with the medication that "cures" this without causing worse problems, we might be having a different discussion at that time.




Since you asked, I am a Neuroscientist :D Of course, this is the internet, so we're probably all a bunch of Neuroscientists having this discussion, as the case often is.
First of all, re-wiring the brain post those key development period is in fact not possible with our current level of technology
Who says you need to rewire? Serotonin inhibitors comes to mind. I'm pretty sure Dexamphetamine doesn't rewire either, at least for the most part. You can still medicate successfully. Also, i don't mean to put word in your mouth but given the context, i thought it obvious that the implication was that we humor them because medicating is too hard. Why would you write it if you didn't mean that?

Second of all, you can certainly attempt any number of medications as treatment, but these are very crude types of tools with very limited efficacy
And imaginary pronouns and body mutilation are sophisticated tools? Really?

It is why it is hard to "cure" mental disorders of ANY type, and medications only have limited effectiveness
If you can relieve patients symptoms through chronic medication, i'd say that's an acceptable 'cure'

There is a reason why people go to such extreme lengths as having sex reassignment surgery. No one opts for this as a first option. It's because there just aren't any existing alternatives that are effective
Right, and some people cut themselves in order to deal with emotions. That doesn't mean we encourage them to do it. Also, in the climate created by trans activists, good luck getting grants to find a medical solution to the issue. It wont happen which ties into why i believe it's a disservice to accommodate them
 
Last edited:

Rhysser

Banned
First of all, re-wiring the brain post those key development period is in fact not possible with our current level of technology
Who says you need to rewire? Serotonin inhibitors comes to mind. I'm pretty sure Dexamphetamine doesn't rewire either, at least for the most part. You can still medicate successfully. Also, i don't mean to put word in your mouth but given the context, i thought it obvious that the implication was that we humor them because medicating is too hard. Why would you write it if you didn't mean that?

In order to "cure" something like this, it requires to rewire the brain, since that is the cause of it. It's not just an issue of chemical balance. That's why I addressed it. But you could also try to medicate, which I mention as well to "relieve" symptoms, but today that isn't an available option. As far as if it were an option, I'd let mental health professionals figure out how to deal with these issues on a patient-specific basis - since I am not one, making this kind of recommendation based on poorly considered notions of "common sense" seems misguided. Everyone is different, and different things make them happy as a result.

In any case, pumping in chemicals in brains affects the entire system in all sorts of ways, it's hard to cause targeted effects this way, but if you figure it out I guarantee you that the medical world will embrace it as an option, despite what conspiracies you imagine are going on. That quite prominent article I linked that identifies various processes and chemicals involved IS how treatments end up getting developed - by first understanding causes, and which as you noted calls them "disorders". But we are still at a level where we barely understand all the pieces involved, much less having an effective universal treatment option that doesn't simultaneously wreak havoc on every other system. Take a look at some of the side effects caused by some of these drugs that affect brain function and neurotransmitters - anything from being constantly in a mental fog, loss of sex drive, to inability for blood clot as effectively, insomnia, headaches, etc and you will quickly see that maybe they are not such a great option for everyone and maybe some people would just be better off without them and you just calling them "they" - while others might be better off with the treatments.

Second of all, you can certainly attempt any number of medications as treatment, but these are very crude types of tools with very limited efficacy
And imaginary pronouns and body mutilation are sophisticated tools? Really?

I'm not humoring anybody. You have a weird binary view on all things "brain". Personally, my goal is to help people who are going through something difficult. If they wanted to take a pill and I could offer them one, I would. If all I can offer them to help is to respect their pronouns I will. I'm not saying the pronouns are some sort of "treatment", nor that I somehow know whether or not an individual needs "treatment". But what I do know is that respecting their pronouns probably will make their day just a little bit better, at basically no cost to me, and also without inhibiting the development of other medical approaches that could help them.
 
Last edited:
Firstly, fuck threatening to ban people for disrespecting an imaginary robots pronouns. But.

Second of all, you can certainly attempt any number of medications as treatment, but these are very crude types of tools with very limited efficacy
And imaginary pronouns and body mutilation are sophisticated tools? Really?

Interestingly, you didn't even attempt any kind of engagement/discussion with that point, you just switched to dismissing an extreme interpretation of a point the author never made and that wasn't related to the quote you responded to.

It is why it is hard to "cure" mental disorders of ANY type, and medications only have limited effectiveness
If you can relieve patients symptoms through chronic medication, i'd say that's an acceptable 'cure'


Fortunately, you don't get to decide what an acceptable "cure" is for people who have to live through something you will never even have a frame of reference from which to try and understand.

"Acceptable 'cure' ". For goodness sake, acting from a position of complete ignorance (in terms of both science and empathy) and considering it a form of measured charity is a veritable fireworks display of arrogance.

I'm about as trans as a caveman, but having come out the other side of some mental health problems of my own, I see you for what you are.

Oh shitttt we have the engineers, neuroscientists, biochemists, forensic psychologists, etc up in here!!! Fuck just devs and Ceo's we have truly hit big time 😁

Don't forget that we also have people who use ridicule as a means of trying to nuke discussion from orbit. We have those. Pretty sure I've come across that recently.
 

Rhysser

Banned
Katsura said:
... Swedish meta study stuff...
... Swedish meta study stuff...
... Swedish meta study stuff...

Ok I tried pretty hard to find this. I did not realize you were citing PLoS One (Yikes! But it does count as legitimate science barely :D)



This is their ACTUAL conclusion:

Persons with transsexualism, after sex reassignment, have considerably higher risks for mortality, suicidal behaviour, and psychiatric morbidity than the general population. Our findings suggest that sex reassignment, although alleviating gender dysphoria, may not suffice as treatment for transsexualism, and should inspire improved psychiatric and somatic care after sex reassignment for this patient group.

So, far from your summary, in fact sex reassignment does help. But maybe not enough on its own. The conclusion being to do sex reassignment PLUS other things, not just other things. Also I don't see anything about "pronouns" having no effect. Is this not the right study? It is in Sweden.

Now, on the one hand, this IS PLoS One, so take it with a grain of salt, but on the other, it IS your study so hey. Sounds like you should be agreeing to sex reassignment, not knocking it.

In addition, numerous studies report the positive benefits, including:

increased well-being
Participants reported high degrees of well-being and a good social integration. Very few participants were unemployed, most of them had a steady relationship, and they were also satisfied with their relationships with family and friends. Their overall evaluation of the treatment process for sex reassignment and its effectiveness in reducing gender dysphoria was positive. Regarding the results of the standardized questionnaires, participants showed significantly fewer psychological problems and interpersonal difficulties as well as a strongly increased life satisfaction at follow-up than at the time of the initial consultation. Despite these positive results, the treatment of transsexualism is far from being perfect.

Improved Quality of Life (QoL)
The self-developed indication-specific questionnaire showed that 91% experienced an improvement of QOL. All patients stated they would undergo SRS again and did not regret it at all. Patients stated their femininity significantly increased. For the FLZM, the sum score for general life satisfaction (P < .001) was significantly lower than the normative data, whereas the sum score of the satisfaction with health module (P = .038) did not reach statistical significance. The two modules also showed positive trends for different items. Values of the body image module showed a significant increase in satisfaction with breasts (P < .001) and genitals (P = .002).


Here's a meta analysis of multiple studies:

Research has also provided conflicting psychiatric outcomes following gender-confirming medical interventions. This review identifies 38 cross-sectional and longitudinal studies describing prevalence rates of psychiatric disorders and psychiatric outcomes, pre- and post-gender-confirming medical interventions, for people with gender dysphoria. It indicates that, although the levels of psychopathology and psychiatric disorders in trans people attending services at the time of assessment are higher than in the cis population, they do improve following gender-confirming medical intervention, in many cases reaching normative values.

There are two things that seem to be clear:

1. Studies and methodology around effectiveness is kind of poor right now and needs to be improved.
2. Despite this, mostly everyone is in agreement that sex reassignment surgeries and other gender confirming interventions have a positive effect, even if additional treatment continues to be needed.

Again, far from what you claimed the Sweden study found.

But again, maybe I have the wrong study. If so please link.

I'm sure now all of the people who were interested in the "science" of this have changed their minds. That's how the internet works right? :D
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Firstly, fuck threatening to ban people for disrespecting an imaginary robots pronouns.
It is pretty silly.

It's a video game robot creation, where the illustrator wants to call it a "they". And somehow every gamer is supposed to know that.

Now if the creator suddenly changes tune and says the robot is now a "he" or "she", gamers have to change their pronouns again?
 

Ivellios

Member
Ok I tried pretty hard to find this. I did not realize you were citing PLoS One (Yikes! But it does count as legitimate science barely :D)



This is their ACTUAL conclusion:



So, far from your summary, in fact sex reassignment does help. But maybe not enough on its own. The conclusion being to do sex reassignment PLUS other things, not just other things. Also I don't see anything about "pronouns" having no effect. Is this not the right study? It is in Sweden.

Now, on the one hand, this IS PLoS One, so take it with a grain of salt, but on the other, it IS your study so hey. Sounds like you should be agreeing to sex reassignment, not knocking it.

In addition, numerous studies report the positive benefits, including:

increased well-being


Improved Quality of Life (QoL)



Here's a meta analysis of multiple studies:



There are two things that seem to be clear:

1. Studies and methodology around effectiveness is kind of poor right now and needs to be improved.
2. Despite this, mostly everyone is in agreement that sex reassignment surgeries and other gender confirming interventions have a positive effect, even if additional treatment continues to be needed.

Again, far from what you claimed the Sweden study found.

But again, maybe I have the wrong study. If so please link.

I'm sure now all of the people who were interested in the "science" of this have changed their minds. That's how the internet works right? :D

I work on academia as well and while PLOS One dont have a very high impact factor like Nature, trying to discredit the article in question saying its barely science really weaken your argument.

You are right in pointing out that according to the article, sex reassignment actually alleviate gender dysphoria, its simply not enought to prevent the high suicide rate in this population. And if you do read the results and discussion of the article, you will find that such procedures probably increase mortality due to cardiovascular diseases as well.

I did a quick research and here is another article that points out that while SRS can have improve the overall mental health of the patient, it also has prejudicial effect on the patient along with these benefits.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609516300856

"The participants showed significant improvement after SRS in domains II (psychological) and IV (social relationships) of the WHOQOL-100. In contrast, domains I (physical health) and III (level of independence) were significantly worse after SRS. Individuals who underwent additional surgery had a decrease in quality of life reflected in domains II and IV. "
 

Filben

Member
As much as confusing is my own native language with its separation of grammatical and social gender so we have to find social gender-neutral words or have to add suffixes and other odd structures to not exclude females, English is confusing as well. I understand that English strictly uses 'it' for any non-human thing, e.g. dogs, horses, you name it (which is odd to me, because in German you don't. Using "it" for dogs just feel odd). Though sometimes people refer to their "good boi" with he or she. That is intentionally "misgendered" but no-one cares, the dog/cat/horse/crocodile the least. So how does a fictional character care? Sure, sure, the author cares. Though I'm sure many authors care about you liking their characters, which you sometimes simply can't. Should that be enforced as well, just because the author wants you to, because they want you to interact with that fictional character how they want?

This is weird.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
As much as confusing is my own native language with its separation of grammatical and social gender so we have to find social gender-neutral words or have to add suffixes and other odd structures to not exclude females, English is confusing as well. I understand that English strictly uses 'it' for any non-human thing, e.g. dogs, horses, you name it (which is odd to me, because in German you don't. Using "it" for dogs just feel odd). Though sometimes people refer to their "good boi" with he or she. That is intentionally "misgendered" but no-one cares, the dog/cat/horse/crocodile the least. So how does a fictional character care? Sure, sure, the author cares. Though I'm sure many authors care about you liking their characters, which you sometimes simply can't. Should that be enforced as well, just because the author wants you to, because they want you to interact with that fictional character how they want?

This is weird.
The person who created the character and 2k somehow expect gamers to know the robot character FL4K is a "they"..... and not a he, she or it.

And if they don't comply on forums, they get banned.

Name one person in the world (excluding the illustrator) who would assume this character would be a "they".

FL4k.0.jpg
 

Rhysser

Banned
I work on academia as well and while PLOS One dont have a very high impact factor like Nature, trying to discredit the article in question saying its barely science really weaken your argument.

You are right in pointing out that according to the article, sex reassignment actually alleviate gender dysphoria, its simply not enought to prevent the high suicide rate in this population. And if you do read the results and discussion of the article, you will find that such procedures probably increase mortality due to cardiovascular diseases as well.

I did a quick research and here is another article that points out that while SRS can have improve the overall mental health of the patient, it also has prejudicial effect on the patient along with these benefits.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1743609516300856

"The participants showed significant improvement after SRS in domains II (psychological) and IV (social relationships) of the WHOQOL-100. In contrast, domains I (physical health) and III (level of independence) were significantly worse after SRS. Individuals who underwent additional surgery had a decrease in quality of life reflected in domains II and IV. "

Oh come on, the PLoS One dig is partly tongue-in-cheek, and partly to give Katsura an "out" since the study didn't ultimately support her claims. Believing the study support my argument, so I have no reason to deny it if I were trying to strengthen that. That said, there's two reasons a journal article has a low impact factor. Reason one is because it's specialized. Reason two is because it has lower standards. PLoS One is the latter. Everyone's skeptical of stuff that appears there without additional corroboration, not just me, and no one publishes their top quality work there. A common thing you hear scientists say "Oh well if we get rejected from Journal X, we'll just dump it in PLoS One"

As I said, all of the studies looking at this seem to be methodologically poor , but the trend seems to generally be on the positive side, in contrast to what Katsura was claiming.
 
Last edited:

DrAspirino

Banned
Washers and dryers are neutral gendered in my native language. TVs are obviously female gendered. The oven is OBVIOUSLY a guy, so yes, I do mind.
In my native language, washers and dryers are female gendered, while TVs and ovens are "guys". Robots are guys as well, since they end in "ot". Consoles and computers are also guys. xD
 

Rhysser

Banned
In my native language, washers and dryers are female gendered, while TVs and ovens are "guys". Robots are guys as well, since they end in "ot". Consoles and computers are also guys. xD

I wonder if the difference stems from ovens and TVs in your country having different biological sex organs than ovens and TVs in my country. ;)
 
Last edited:

DrAspirino

Banned
I wonder if the difference stems from ovens and TVs in your country having different biological sex organs than ovens and TVs in my country. ;)
Na... it just comes from the name itself. "Lavadora", "secadora" end in "a", hence female gender. "Televisor", "Robot", "computador" ends in "ot" and "or", so they're gendered male.

Yeah...spanish is practically a diabolical language for LGBT foreigners, since everything is gendered. Lol.

Edit: oh, and by the way, the "Real Academia de la Lengua Española" (The Spanish Language Royal Academy) - which is the organization that orders and rule the spanish language - explicitly mocks everyone that tries to make the language "gender neutral" or even change the ending of words towards a political agenda, because that would be against the very grammar rules of the language. You should see their twitter. Hahahaha xD
 
Last edited:

Ivellios

Member
Oh come on, the PLoS One dig is partly tongue-in-cheek, and partly to give Katsura an "out" since the study didn't ultimately support her claims. That said, there's two reasons a journal article has a low impact factor. Reason one is because it's specialized. Reason two is because it has lower standards. PLoS One is the latter. Everyone's skeptical of stuff that appears there without additional corroboration, not just me, and no one publishes their top quality work there. A common thing you hear scientists say "Oh well if we get rejected from Journal X, we'll just dump it in PLoS One"

As I said, all of the studies looking at this seem to be methodologically poor , but the trend seems to generally be on the positive side, in contrast to what Katsura was claiming.

Fair enough, i understand what you are saying, i just wanted to mention not to completely disrergard an article just because it was published on PLoS One or similar, without first you yourself seeing the quality of the article.

As for the article posted by Katsura, it was cited 402 times, so people in the area must think it has good quality.

And yes, scientificly speaking i dont think we have the answer for this debate yet imo, as in it maybe has positive effect on mental health of the patients but it also has negative effect on their overall health conditions.

Though in my ignorant opnion i would think that invasive treatments and cirurgy should only be used last resort, since there is no turning back from this decision and the associated health risks.
 
Last edited:

Rhysser

Banned
As for the article posted by Katsura, it was cited 402 times, so people in the area must think it has good quality

Great! Since that article recommends that we should keep offering sex reassignment surgery in addition to followup therapy, we should probably do that given that people think it's good quality :)


Though in my ignorant opnion i would think that invasive treatments and cirurgy should only be used last resort, since there is no turning back from this decision and the associated health risks.

I mean, as far as I know they are. Typically it takes multiple referrals from mental health experts after other attempts have failed to be able to get this type of surgery.
 
Last edited:

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
Na... it just comes from the name itself. "Lavadora", "secadora" end in "a", hence female gender. "Televisor", "Robot", "computador" ends in "ot" and "or", so they're gendered male.

Yeah...spanish is practically a diabolical language for LGBT foreigners, since everything is gendered. Lol.

Edit: oh, and by the way, the "Real Academia de la Lengua Española" (The Spanish Language Royal Academy) - which is the organization that orders and rule the spanish language - explicitly mocks everyone that tries to make the language "gender neutral" or even change the ending of words towards a political agenda, because that would be against the very grammar rules of the language. You should see their twitter. Hahahaha xD
I don't know Spanish.

But I had to learn French for half my public schooling years. Everything seemed to have a masculine and feminine slant to it..... Le, La, kind of thing. Amazing how my French teacher would know the proper term to use for every noun.

English is simple.

A robot.

Not Le Robot or La Robot.
 

Rhysser

Banned
Amazing how my French teacher would know the proper term to use for every noun.

It's simpler than you think. As was mentioned, the words themselves have endings that imply their gender. So you don't need to know it for any nouns. You just know that things that end in 'a' are 99% chance to be female, and things that end in 'o' are 99% chance to be male, etc.
 

Rhysser

Banned

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
It's simpler than you think. As was mentioned, the words themselves have endings that imply their gender. So you don't need to know it for any nouns. You just know that things that end in 'a' are 99% chance to be female, and things that end in 'o' are 99% chance to be male, etc.
I just googled it now for French.

Would have been great if my French teachers taught us this! It's not perfect 100% accuracy as per the article, but helps.

 
Last edited:
Robot equality already well-represented in gaming, so we can be sure when robots become self-aware they'll already see themselves reflected as independent and sentient agents in mainstream culture. See: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/games/detroit-become-human-ps4/ Glad to see we're ahead of the curve in at least ONE of these equality issues :D

A machine can never be conscious as it's not a sentient being. No matter how complex their ultimately binary code becomes. These are all projections, and ultimately human arrogance. You know what has consciousness and feelings, but few people actually are aware of? Plants. Why? Because it doesn't satiate the fragile, but gigantic human ego, and doesn't give the feedback human beings so desperately crave. A fine example of human "supremacism".
 
Last edited:

Rhysser

Banned
A machine can never be conscious as it's not a sentient being. No matter how complex their ultimately binary code becomes. These are all projections, and ultimately human arrogance. You know what has consciousness and feelings, but few people actually are aware of? Plants. Why? Because it doesn't satiate the fragile, but gigantic human ego, and doesn't give the feedback human beings so desperately crave. A fine example of human "supremacism".

Interesting theorem about the proposed limits of binary code. Can't say if it's true since no one actually knows what properties consciousness requires (some theorists even suggest that it's a fundamental property of the universe and every object has it at different levels).

Of course, we might not always be building robots with binary code. Soon we may be building them with artificial neurons that, in addition to binary "spikes" have graded potentials that can encode information.
 
Interesting theorem about the proposed limits of binary code. Can't say if it's true since no one actually knows what properties consciousness requires (some theorists even suggest that it's a fundamental property of the universe and every object has it at different levels).

Of course, we might not always be building robots with binary code. Soon we may be building them with artificial neurons that, in addition to binary "spikes" have graded potentials that can encode information.

It's not even a theory. I'm not even into programming, but it's the obvious reality. Machines are man's creation. That he becomes so fascinated and obsessed with his own creation is his problem, it doesn't chance the nature of reality.

Also, why this fixation with the artificial, with the anthropomorphic (because man creates these things after his own image)? Seems people are more concerned about things and ideas than about human beings and nature. But then again, we've been on the wrong path for quite some time now.
 

StreetsofBeige

Gold Member
It's not even a theory. I'm not even into programming, but it's the obvious reality. Machines are man's creation. That he becomes so fascinated and obsessed with his own creation is his problem, it doesn't chance the nature of reality.

Also, why this fixation with the artificial, with the anthropomorphic (because man creates these things after his own image)? Seems people are more concerned about things and ideas than about human beings and nature. But then again, we've been on the wrong path for quite some time now.
I think people who really care about inanimate things on a personal level (like treating a robot in a video game like it's a real person...... or lets say someone calling their laptop a he or she) comes from deep down loneliness.

Aside from joking around earlier about gendering kitchen appliances for laughs, I don't think I've ever associated any gear I own, my car, my laptop or anything that can even run on it's own..... my printer does automated self cleaning every once in a while which is loud as fuck. Or playing a game and the CPU AI kicking my ass.

I don't think I've ever considered them in any way a he or she. It's an it. And even if I did say in passing the AI is.... "he's kicking my ass", I don't consider it serious enough to dwell on it and treat it like it's real.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why someone wants to associate a creation having life and a personality. If someone draws a character, I can see why someone will describe it as he or she or they.

But don't go around crucifying people looking at it and calling that human made object an it.
 
Last edited:
Well if you can prove it congratulations on your Nobel prize! If you can't it's a theory by definition, and not even the scientific kind.

Reality doesn't need a theory. Reality IS. In reality you can create theories, but it doesn't change it.

EDIT: Science has explained nothing. In fact it created more questions than answers, just like philosophy. But go ahead, and see if you can find things that are not there. :)
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Member
Biding my time since 2013 in preparation for this very moment. The robot non-binary pronoun misgendering ban has been a loooong time in the making :D
Ivellios already said what i was going to reply but just to reiterate - while the authors conclude it helps, looking at the data suggests that's a biased conclusion since the numbers show that ultimately it has no long term effect on mortality rates. Look at the numbers instead of cherry picking. So the sum up, back what all started this, you claimed that science supports you. Both in this thread and the duplicate one. I believe i have demonstrated that you are wrong. This is not established science. In fact, some of it is based on ideology rather than facts
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Member
Firstly, fuck threatening to ban people for disrespecting an imaginary robots pronouns. But.



Interestingly, you didn't even attempt any kind of engagement/discussion with that point, you just switched to dismissing an extreme interpretation of a point the author never made and that wasn't related to the quote you responded to.



Fortunately, you don't get to decide what an acceptable "cure" is for people who have to live through something you will never even have a frame of reference from which to try and understand.

"Acceptable 'cure' ". For goodness sake, acting from a position of complete ignorance (in terms of both science and empathy) and considering it a form of measured charity is a veritable fireworks display of arrogance.

I'm about as trans as a caveman, but having come out the other side of some mental health problems of my own, I see you for what you are.



Don't forget that we also have people who use ridicule as a means of trying to nuke discussion from orbit. We have those. Pretty sure I've come across that recently.
What's your point? Is that some kind of appeal to authority because you think that your own mental health issues somehow makes you capable of deciding what's true? That sounds like the typical SJW retardation. 'Oh, you can't have an opinion because you're white', 'You don't know because you're male'. Fuck off with that shit
 
Last edited:

Rhysser

Banned
Ivellios already said what i was going to reply but just to reiterate - while the authors conclude it helps, looking at the data suggests that's a biased conclusion since the numbers show that ultimately it has no long term effect on mortality rates. Look at the numbers instead of cherry picking. So the sum up, back what all started this, you claimed that science supports you. Both in this thread and the duplicate one. I believe i have demonstrated that you are wrong. This is not established science. In fact, some of it is based on ideology rather than facts

Actually what happened is that another poster falsely claimed that science says that gender identity and biological sex are the same. I disagreed, and the poster demanded "scientific proof" which I was sure he didn't care about, but still provided a link to a great review article that reviews like the entire field of endocrinology around the subject and supports that gender identity and biological sex are different things. It also showed that they are physical things such as brain changes during development.

Then YOU claimed that there was a Sweden study that showed that pronouns and surgeries don't help. I then gave you the benefit of the doubt that it might be true as I was not myself making any claims about surgeries or pronouns from a scientific perspective, and had not seen any work on it. But from a personal perspective people seem to like it when I call them by the pronouns they want, so why not?

Later, I had some time to dig up the study and saw that it does not conclude what you said at all, and in fact concludes the opposite thing about surgeries. And it says actually nothing about pronouns despite you claiming that it does. I further found that the field in general has not yet done a great job of evaluating the outcomes but that they tend to be positive.

That is the summary of how this played out.

So with that, since surgeries and pronouns are the best thing we have, until you can offer something better, and since they generally do seem to help even if we don't conclusively know by precisely how much, just do it.

Btw there is a Nature article that suggests that it is accepted by the field that surgeries are the best method we have so far. I didn't link it because it includes pictures about surgeries. But you can google it if you want.
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Member
Actually what happened is that another poster falsely claimed that science says that gender identity and biological sex are the same. I disagreed, and the poster demanded "scientific proof" which I was sure he didn't care about, but still provided a link to a great review article that reviews like the entire field of endocrinology around the subject and supports that gender identity and biological sex are different things. It also showed that they are physical things such as brain changes during development.

Then YOU claimed that there was a Sweden study that showed that pronouns and surgeries don't help. I then gave you the benefit of the doubt that it might be true as I was not myself making any claims about surgeries or pronouns from a scientific perspective, and had not seen any work on it. But from a personal perspective people seem to like it when I call them by the pronouns they want, so why not?

Later, I had some time to dig up the study and saw that it does not conclude what you said at all, and in fact concludes the opposite thing about surgeries. And it says actually nothing about pronouns despite you claiming that it does. I further found that the field in general has not yet done a great job of evaluating the outcomes but that they tend to be positive.

That is the summary of how this played out.

So with that, since surgeries and pronouns are the best thing we have, until you can offer something better, and since they generally do seem to help even if we don't conclusively know by precisely how much, just do it.

Btw there is a Nature article that suggests that it is accepted by the field that surgeries are the best method we have so far. I didn't link it because it includes pictures about surgeries. But you can google it if you want.
If the mortality rate remains the same, explain to me how it's the best method we have?
It's an extremely invasive solution, causing lots of problems on it's own and it does not appear to have any positive long term effect. Maybe we have a different definition of 'best method' because to me, the above describes something that is actually worse than doing nothing
 

Rhysser

Banned
If the mortality rate remains the same, explain to me how it's the best method we have?
It's an extremely invasive solution, causing lots of problems on it's own and it does not appear to have any positive long term effect. Maybe we have a different definition of 'best method' because to me, the above describes something that is actually worse than doing nothing

Because dying or living isn't the only measure that exists. Most transgendered people don't die. As a result, if the quality of life of the vast majority of transgendered people who live improves (and it does!), then it's still a lot better than doing nothing. As far as the invasiveness, if it's worth it to the person, what's it to you? These people are sane adults who can make their own decisions about tradeoffs. And they generally make the decision with other, qualified adults (their doctors and therapists). It's ALSO the case that the vast majority of people who have the surgery do not regret it - probably because they really think through it with their therapists and doctors, and only those who are really sure they want it go through with it.

Going back to using the correct pronouns though, since THAT is not invasive, are you thinking you might at least do that?
 
Last edited:

oagboghi2

Member
Because dying or living isn't the only measure that exists. Most transgendered people don't die. As a result, if the quality of life of the vast majority of transgendered people who live improves (and it does!), then it's still a lot better than doing nothing. As far as the invasiveness, if it's worth it to the person, what's it to you? These people are sane adults who can make their own decisions about tradeoffs. And they generally make the decision with other, qualified adults (their doctors and therapists). It's ALSO the case that the vast majority of people who have the surgery do not regret it - probably because they really think through it with their therapists and doctors, and only those who are really sure they want it go through with it.

Going back to using the correct pronouns though, since THAT is not invasive, are you thinking you might at least do that?
"Sane" that's debatable.

Doesn't have mu h to do with the fact that a fictional robot is an it
 

oagboghi2

Member
That's such a weird thing to cherrypick out of that since as mentioned the decisions are made with their doctors and therapists. But hey, get your kicks in I guess.
As weird as mutilating your body based off a "feeling". I doubt it.

Not that any of this has to do with a fictional robot...which is an it.
 

oagboghi2

Member
Really invested in this whole "aggressively punching down" persona, I see. To each her own, I guess!
"Punching down" Jesus, can you recite the script anymore.🙄

I'm sorry the truth is "punching down". I'll remember in the future to "punch up" and give my appliances pronuns
 

Katsura

Member
Because dying or living isn't the only measure that exists. Most transgendered people don't die. As a result, if the quality of life of the vast majority of transgendered people who live improves (and it does!), then it's still a lot better than doing nothing. As far as the invasiveness, if it's worth it to the person, what's it to you? These people are sane adults who can make their own decisions about tradeoffs. And they generally make the decision with other, qualified adults (their doctors and therapists). It's ALSO the case that the vast majority of people who have the surgery do not regret it - probably because they really think through it with their therapists and doctors, and only those who are really sure they want it go through with it.

Going back to using the correct pronouns though, since THAT is not invasive, are you thinking you might at least do that?
I used to not care about the pronouns. My attitude was 'who cares'. Except it didn't stop there. Then they wanted to use the opposing sex's bathroom. Men wanted to compete in women's sports. Some countries enacted laws that made it a crime not to use their pronouns. Then i started to care

As for them being sane, i disagree. I do not think they're capable of making this decision
having a healthy mind and not mentally ill
By that definition they are not sane
 

Rhysser

Banned
Bark! Bark! Bark!

Uh... Bark?!

I used to not care about the pronouns. My attitude was 'who cares'. Except it didn't stop there. Then they wanted to use the opposing sex's bathroom. Men wanted to compete in women's sports. Some countries enacted laws that made it a crime not to use their pronouns. Then i started to care

As for them being sane, i disagree. I do not think they're capable of making this decision
having a healthy mind and not mentally ill
By that definition they are not sane

This is a very interesting post.

First of all, they don't make the decision alone typically, and the people they consult are likely more qualified than you.

Also, it's ok to be against enforcing using pronouns by law, and still support respecting their wishes to do it anyway.

"They" wanted, wtf does that even mean. They are not a mass of people with a hive mind, they are a bunch of individuals who want different things. It's cool to do the things that make sense like respecting their pronouns while being against laws that force it.

The most interesting thing though is that you are finally admitting that you are against pronouns NOT because it is bad for transgender people, but because you dislike other changes that are associated with it. The whole "science says pronouns don't help them" thing was, predictably, a front.

Ok, I can't particularly help you with that last piece other than to recommend you make a point of hanging out with a few trangendered people on a regular basis. I mostly wanted to clarify the science and it's best recommendations for helping transgendered people :) I think that part is completed.
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Member
Uh... Bark?!



This is a very interesting post.

First of all, they don't make the decision alone typically, and the people they consult are likely more qualified than you.

Also, it's ok to be against enforcing using pronouns by law, and still support respecting their wishes to do it anyway.

"They" wanted, wtf does that even mean. They are not a mass of people with a hive mind, they are a bunch of individuals who want different things. It's cool to do the things that make sense like respecting their pronouns while being against laws that force it.

The most interesting thing though is that you are finally admitting that you are against pronouns NOT because it is bad for transgender people, but because you dislike other changes that are associated with it. The whole "science says pronouns don't help them" thing was, predictably, a front.

Ok, I can't particularly help you with that last piece other than to recommend you make a point of hanging out with a few trangendered people on a regular basis. I mostly wanted to clarify the science and it's best recommendations for helping transgendered people :) I think that part is completed.
For someone who objects to having words put in their mouth, you sure don't seem to have a problem doing it yourself. The reason why i started to care was indeed because of what followed. The reason why i now refuse to use those pronouns is because of several reasons
1. There is no conclusive evidence it helps
2. We don't change our language for an extremely small minority
3. It would, as discussed at length, make the word 'gender' and the concept of pronouns completely irrelevant

Finally, i love how you completely evade that when going by the actual meaning of the word 'sane', they are indeed not sane
 
Last edited:

Rhysser

Banned
For someone who objects to having words put in their mouth, you sure don't seem to have a problem doing it yourself. The reason why i started to care was indeed because of what followed. The reason why i now refuse to use those pronouns is because of several reasons
1. There is no conclusive evidence it helps
2. We don't change our language for an extremely small minority
3. It would, as discussed at length, make the word 'gender' and the concept of pronouns completely irrelevant

Essentially your new claim boils down to that you are not 100% sure it helps long term despite individuals telling you they are personally helped and studies showing that it DOES help improve well-being (but maybe not the mortality rate), and because of some language reasons.

Seems much weaker than before, where it was supposedly because "feeding into the delusion prevents us from having them get a better treatment". In any case, I don't think there's more to add if those things on your list are your new reasons, since they are pretty evidently weak in the face of things like actually helping people.

Finally, i love how you completely evade that when going by the actual meaning of the word 'sane', they are indeed not sane

I'm not evading it it's just not worth even addressing. E.g. I don't consider clinically depressed people "insane" and unable to make their own decisions. You're choosing an oddly general definition. It's also unimportant, because as I said, they have doctors and therapists to validate the decision, so they certainly don't need you to.
 
Last edited:

Katsura

Member
Essentially your new claim boils down to that you are not 100% sure it helps long term despite individuals telling you they are personally helped and studies showing that it DOES help improve well-being (but maybe not the mortality rate), and because of some language reasons.

Seems much weaker than before, where it was supposedly because "feeding into the delusion prevents us from having them get a better treatment". In any case, I don't think there's more to add if those things on your list are your new reasons, since they are pretty evidently weak in the face of things like actually helping people.



I'm not evading it it's just not worth even addressing. E.g. I don't consider clinically depressed people "insane" and unable to make their own decisions. You're choosing an oddly general definition. It's also unimportant, because as I said, they have doctors and therapists to validate the decision, so they certainly don't need you to.
No, the claim is the same. They're still delusional, which is why the definition of sane is also important. I've also previously stated how the current situation regarding transgenders prevents meaningful research for a medical solution being done as you'd be labelled transphobic if you dared to suggest we should look for one. I don't really care what you consider sane or not. The word is well defined already. That's beauty of not changing our language on a whim
 

Rhysser

Banned
No, the claim is the same. They're still delusional, which is why the definition of sane is also important. I've also previously stated how the current situation regarding transgenders prevents meaningful research for a medical solution being done as you'd be labelled transphobic if you dared to suggest we should look for one. I don't really care what you consider sane or not. The word is well defined already. That's beauty of not changing our language on a whim

Ok, well thanks for the conversation, it's been fun, but I think we covered all of the things :)
 
Top Bottom