ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
No bio...
User ID: 626
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
13hr ago
The 250,000 has been the standard estimate on the British right, but it comes from a Reform peer making a guess in order to ask a Parliamentary question - basically "I think there were 250,000 - if you have a lower estimate please share it"
Weren't there more thorough reports from Rotheram, Telford, and Oxford, with actual numbers, that got extrapolated nationally to reach 250K? It's still flawed methodology, but it's not "basically I think there were 250,000".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
14hr ago
This is false.
That's right. While it is true that that there are significant number of your Pakistani neighbors who could call up some friends to gang rape someone's daughter and their extended clan network will overlook it while the police ignore it to preserve "community cohesion", your daughter would be safe. Mostly.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
15hr ago
Regardless of how many people actually believe this, it's obvious that politically this is the line mainstream trans activism has to take, because otherwise to exclude trans people from spaces, all their opponents have to do is relabel them from, say, "women's sports" to "female sports", and that would defeat the entire purpose of trans activism.
I saw an "ethically sourced" version of the "understanding per capita" meme too, as I was scrolling by, but I sadly didn't save it.
I suppose it would be possible, if the ADHD was severe, and and phobia was truly crippling. He was actually quoting an excerpt showing that the more mundane cases were excluded (see here).
How is it not a useful statistic? Again, the study didn't just compare trans people to controls. They compared to how the mental health of trans people developed over the years as they transition / or don't, to how it develops in the control group. The group of trans people that took blockers or hormones, or had surgeries, had a higher rate of severe mental disorders than the trans people that didn't.
Even if the modal case is a crippling fear of heights, a result showing that these crippling phobias develop after their medical intervention, but not in people who don't go through with the transition, is interesting, no?
Need for specialist-level psychiatric treatment before the index contact (yes/no) and thereafter (yes/no) was recorded.
The impact of the quality of life on visiting a psychiatrist is hard to quantify. Both a patient who is undergoing exposure therapy to better deal with their fear of spiders before moving to the countryside, and a patient locked up in forensic psychiatry after killing someone during a psychotic episode would simply fall in the "specialist-level psychiatric treatment" bin.
The statistics section briefly discusses confounders
Ben Ryan: Is it fair to say that just by virtue of having contact with GIS [gender identity services—ie: the gender clinic] and undergoing GR [gender reassignment], the youth in the study cohort would be more likely to be referred to a specialist psychiatrist than someone in the general population, even if they had similar psychiatric comorbidity?
Riittakerttu Kaltiala: No. Specialist level psychiatric treatment is provided in case of severe mental disorders, and the need is assessed with national equity criteria that exist to maintain equal access across the country. Referrals to specialist level psychiatric services by different referring agents (such as primary care, GIS, occupational health, student health, private practitioners) are assessed similarly regardless of where they come from.
Obviously this is hard to do for ethical reasons. But anything else risks simply measuring confounders.
Oh, that's rich. When the Cass Review pointed out that the evidence for trans medicine is of low quality, the pro-trans side was claiming that it's oh-so-unfair that Cass would only declare a study "good" if it's double-blind (spoiler: she didn't), but now we're supposed apply that standard to studies with negative results, otherwise the interventions should be deemed good by default? How does that make any sense?
This is not my experience. The anti-trans side believes very strongly in their conception of gender, hence all the bathroom bans.
Thay sounds lime your belief in gender being so strong, that you can't conceive of someone having an alternative belief, and interpreting their thoughts through your lens. Why would I need to believe in "gender" to segregate people by sex?
By contrast, the people most offended by trans people believe very strongly in the existence of gender, they just happen to think that it is identical to sex-assigned-at-birth.
That makes no sense. Let's say I accept "gender" exists, even under that belief system it's possible to say "even though we sometime segregate people by gender, in this context it's more appropriate to segregate them by sex". I've been told that by pro-trans people! So if I can segregate people by sex when gender exists, I can do so when I think it doesn't.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
There's some nitpicking to be done here, for example, maybe the patients already needed mental health treatment and just found out they needed it at the same time as they found out they're transgender, or that just seeing a mental health professional regularly doesn't necessarily mean that your mental health is worse than it used to be.
Neither of those argument doesn't work. There are 3 groups in the study:
- people with dysphoria pre- some form of transition (blockers, hormones, surgeries)
- people with dysphoria post- transition
- people without dysphoria as controls
The conclusion isn't based on just comparing trans people to controls It's based on how theie mental health deteriorated after transition. I also remember the author of the interview saying all students get a regular (yearly?) mental health assesment in Finland.
But my fundamental objection is to the conclusion that no one should be allowed to transition.
I agree that this study is not enough to conclude that, but I don't I've seen anyone say "this study clearly shows that no one should transition". Instead, it is a rebuttal to the pro trans narrative that claims they are able to accurately diagnose dysphoria, and that these interventions not only help, but are medically necessary. This conversation has a long running context, where the pro-trans side was deliberately misleading people and attacking skeptics for years, so I don't think it's right to try and portray them as saying "well, we just think there's a non-zero number of people who might benefit from this"
Speaking of ROGD, its rhetorical use by anti-trans people is a peculiar example of a self-contradictory motte-and-bailey: usually the bailey is a stronger version of the motte, and thus necessarily consistent with it, but here the bailey ("all trans people are delusional and none of them are their stated gender") contradicts the motte ("some trans people with a specific presentation – primarily adolescent girls – are not actually their stated gender") because the latter presupposes that some trans people are, in fact, their stated gender.
The kind of people who say "no one should transition" don't so much believe some one "isn't their stated gender", they question the very concept of gender. I think it's a strong argument, "gender" is effectively a religious belief. Specifically it seems that it's a secular version of the belief in a soul, and I think it's fair to say that this is not a valid basis for a medical intervention
I also don't see the contradiction. You can say "no one should transition", and "this social contagions seems to be affecting mostly adolescent girls". I see no presupposition of validity of other people's gender dysphoria.
Pearson took the most extreme assumption whenever possible
Nitpick: I don't think extrapolating from 3 known points is the most extreme assumption possible - that should be reserved for assuming that some / most other places had an even higher rate of abuse than Rotheram.
Not including any of those assumptions means that his original statement was pretty untrustworthy.
Well, as long as we're talking about the report, I'd say it criticizeable, but not untrustworthy. They didn't hide the method 5 links deep from an obscure note in the references. The quote is in the second hit when you CTRL+F for "250".
What do you mean?
The scale of the rape gang phenomenon is endemic across the entirety of Britain. The 250,000 figure originates directly from a statement in the House of Lords by Lord Pearson of Rannoch on 14 May, 2019:
“Do the Government accept that if we extrapolate nationally the Jay report on Rotherham and other reports from Telford and Oxford, there appear to have been upwards of 250,000 young white girls raped in this century, very largely by Muslim men, usually several times a day for years?”
This is the verbatim quote of the report quoting Pearson. How do you make it clearer that they took the Rotheram, Telford, and Oxford numbers and extrapolated them nationwide?
EDIT: I can concede they shouldn't use such a strong / high-certainty language in the executive summary:
The scale of the crimes committed is staggering. It has been previously established that, at the very least, 250,000 young white girls have been subjected to repeated rape, gang rape, trafficking, torture, pregnancy, forced Islamic conversion, and lifelong trauma.
But I'm not seeing where the detective work to reconstruct the method, and therefore the untrustworthiness, is supposed to come in.
The Lowe report (and Lord Pearson’s initial bluster) come out looking miserably untrustworthy
Why untrustworthy? I thought the entire reason the figure was controversial, was that they were open about arriving at the number through a naive extrapolation.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
1d ago
I just hope that automating scientific research and papers will become so cheap and accessible to the layman that it won't be possible to truly censor.
That's why they're getting ahead of it, and censoring AI itself.
Though the image of the author frowning and making notes as she browses racist jokes on Twitter brings me joy
"They keep asking me how I would feel if I hadn't eaten breakfast this morning...".
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
I don't doubt that there were plenty of far-left morons who engaged in Palestinian flag waving immediately, but in a country of 330 million you can always find plenty of people to take an indefensible position, along with a news media and internet environment incentivized to convincing you that these ideas are mainstream.
But your original claim was that "it was very difficult to be pro-Palestine", so what difficulties have these people ran into? Once Trump got elected they managed to push through some "muh antisemitism" policies and some people got expelled / deported / otherwise cancelled, but that wasn't in the immediate after math of 10/7, and didn't amount to much anyway.
along with a news media and internet environment incentivized to convincing you that these ideas are mainstream. But this wasn't a position that was taken in polite society.
I mean, if the news media and internet environment was such that it could convince people that these ideas are mainstream, than these ideas are mainstream. When ideas are not mainstream, what you see is a crackdown like when people criticized Covid policies and vaccines, mass migration, or genderwang stuff.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
That interpretation makes no sense to me. Denmark would have as much luck holding Greenland without NATO backing as with it, if Trump actually wanted to take it by force. You can also compare that situation to cases where he actually did use force, like Venezuela and Iran, and see there's essentially no overlap.
It was horrible diplomacy, and there's lots to criticize there, but acting like the invasion was imminent and it was repelled by the resolve of Europeans bravely standing together is cartoonish propaganda.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Threatening the invasion of Greenland.
Again, completely blown out of proportion. They wanted to buy it, the talk of invasion was media and politicians hyperventilating.
Invading Iran without first discussing with the EU nations, causing economic damage and chaos without even giving them a chance to prepare.
A bit of a dick move, but hardly comparable. The war didn't sabotage some bespoke diplomacy Europe was trying to get done, and the US does not depend on European aid the way Israel does on the US.
Having it in the national security strategy that they want to create regime change in Europe.
Europe has literally censored American speech in order to influence US elections, tried to prevent an interview with the current president taking place on an internet platform, and sent activists to help campaign for his opponent.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
3d ago
Israel was a fool’s errand. You can’t stand against two billion Muslims forever,
Israel in it's present location might have been. An Israel almost anywhere else, probably including one carved out of a German state as reparations for the war, would have been perfectly fine.
It was very difficult to be pro-Palestinian in the immediate wake of the initial attacks
I'm pretty antagonistic towards Israel myself, I'm even rather critical of the attitudes that non-Israeli Jewish people tend to have, but this is plainly not how I remember it. I remember an immediate and massive outpouring of support for Palestine, and not just from the immigrant Muslim population, and Jewish people frantically trying to get the barest condemnation of the attack, out of people they thought were their friends.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
I'm playing through the Shadowrun series. I wouldn't call it great (words like "wasted opportunity" might even come to mind), but it's pretty enjoyable.
Though now that I think about it, it's actually done with 3D graphics. You can set the camera projection to isometric, though!
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
Replace "Israel" with "USA", you funnily enough get how it has felt to be a European for the past year and a half. Trump has instituted an era in which alliances are no longer treated with the sanctity they deserve.
I'm not seeing it. The Greenland thing was blown way out of proportion, and other than that what have done that's such an insult? Slowed down the gravy train somewhat?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
4d ago
I have
Where? I haven't seen you trying to convince progressives that they should be as upset about this as they were about #MeToo, and what you describe in the following sentences changes the subject completely.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
And my point is that we need to stop doing that.
Then why not start by telling all the feminists and progressives of various stripes, that they should be at least as outraged about this as they were about Harvey Weinstein and George Floyd (arguably as much as both combined)?
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
So you think the digital ID will be public for all to see, so volunteer moderators will be able to make decisions like thar? I doubt it, such a solution would cause massive chaos.
ArjinFerman
Tinfoil Gigachad
5d ago
Why do you think they'll snip bots though? They're pretty useful to the establishment.
Then why did they, in fact, immediately do bad things to us right after pressure on the was relieved, when they loudly and repeatedly promised that all they want is tolerance?
More options
Context Copy link