This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Yes, I guess I already knew it was a lie. Healthcare professionals can't look inside your brain for you, so they have to rely on what you say. It's extremely easy to get antidepressants if you say you've lost interest in doing your schoolwork, you have heightened anxiety, and you have bleak thoughts involving self harm. The script is different for different mental issues, but it's a script all the same. I don't know how you convince someone of that, but generally, anyone who argues this with you already has their mind made up.
It is deeply frustrating that such an intense issue is so stagnant on the research front (not to mention actually discourages wrongthink). If medicine didn't overextend into territory it didn't fully understand yet, none of this would have happened and I wouldn't get into these soul-destroying arguments. I think science didn't have much to do with the decision to do all this in the first place, so it's very frustrating when pro-trans advocates say to me that clinicians know a lot about medicine and can properly judge in individual cases whether it's worth it or not, so we should just trust them. It sounds so noble.
I am just wondering if trans advocates have any leg to stand on with regards to dismissing the review entirely. Do they have any official published critiques at all they're drawing from? Or is it a blue-tribe-wide vibe that they all feel? It's disturbing to see so many people actually in the field express such things if it's all vibes.
Are there any studies on this that you know of? How did you find this out? Too bad it's both that are required or it would be easier to argue this.
Sadly, I must refer you back to the "it hasn't been properly studied" point above. "No conclusions can be drawn" is basically a constant refrain in the Cass Review.
I think the first time I heard about it was with the case of Jazz Jennings, the rest is connecting the dots from what gender clinicians say themselves. From another post of mine:
One note: I did adjust my position somewhat since writing it. Recently I've seen an interview with a guy that had hypogonadism, basically the opposite of precocious puberty, where his body didn't want to trigger normal development. Apparently doctors managed to get him mostly up to speed where he now looks and acts (the lack of puberty also affected his psychology) like a normal bloke, so from this I figure it's not as bad as I thought. I keep promising myself I'll look into the literature on his condition, since if it describes what happens when it's untreated, that should give a non-politicized answer to the question of what happens due to puberty blockers, but I haven't found the time / motivation to do so yet.
I've also know of at least one detrans woman who managed to get pregnant post-testosterone (I think there are even non-detrans females that gave birth while constantly taking hormones). This is all in contrast to the blockers+hormones case, where I see gender clinicians themselves getting nervous, trying to adjust time-tables, and hacking around the issue, as per the quote above.
Sorry if it's conjecture, but I don't think anyone has actual data on this (or they do, but keep it secret, which wouldn't be surprising either at this point).
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link