I'd like some perspective on this Transgender article i just read

Status
Not open for further replies.

hex000f

Est. Contributor
#1
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/s...ssociated-with-trans-peer-groups-prior-mental

A similar article also appeared as an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. If you have access to the WSJ you should read that one instead. Unlike the above article, the Wall Street Journal version frames it as Dr. Litman noticing in increase in "rapid onset gender dysphoria" and wanting to research it more where as this article acts more like there is already a conclusion.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/r...ing-teens-being-pressured-into-transgenderism

This article says it better.

I'd like some perspective from some of our Transgender members about this.
 

OmiOMy

Est. Contributor
#2
OK.

• No one uses the term "transgender ism" except for the people trying to devalue our existence
• Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is not a thing. It is an attempt to further pathologize our existence and claim we're full of it
• That "study" is flawed. It intentionally mixes stuff unrelated to the situation (like underlying comorbids) and tries to pass them off as "ROGD"
• It seems that one of their first moves was to cite Tumblr as an influence on participants' gender, which is a TIRED tactic by opponents. Red flag.
• People have more resources and vocabulary to express gender now. Of course the "questioning" number is going to go up as people figure themselves out. And that isn't a bad thing. I questioned for a year before I figured out I was trans all along.
 

hex000f

Est. Contributor
#3
Let me first say that I have no doubt that transgender people exist and that the issues that they face are real.

However cases like this (read the anecdote from the parents. tl;dr the hormones and such backfired big time for someone) make me see both sides of this debate.
https://quillette.com/2017/10/06/misunderstanding-new-kind-gender-dysphoria/
I lament that some sites that I can find about this view point don't acknowledge that transgender is a real thing for some.

I cite this story as another anecdotal example of hormones and surgery gone wrong and a case of the "social contagion" Dr. Litman suspects
https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/parents-stories/2017/6/23/olivia-age-16
I don't believe that a site like this has all the answers. In fact, I fault the site admins for failing to admit that transgender people exist but this particular story is worth discussing.

On another note:

"In Britain, one well-known gender clinic reports that the majority of its adolescent population, once 50-50, is now overwhelmingly trans-male (female-to-male)." Asking why this has changed in recent years isn't wrong, nor is asking why there is a surge in trans-male people in recent years isn't wrong. Dr. Littman never said her study was the end all be all of transgender studies. She just tried to find an answer to a statistical change.

If some people are ultimately much worse off after hormones and surgery instead of better the solution can't be as simple as "Everyone who feels they are trans should be accepted and encouraged"

Therefore I feel this "Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria" needs more study.

edit: Dr. Litman isn't the only one:
https://www.parentsofrogdkids.com/research/
this study even states that some people are unhappy with their new gender identity and know it.
 
Last edited:

Drifter

Top Contributor
#4
I agree with Hex. As I see it, if there is good reason to believe an academic study was done with a foregone conclusion based on political beliefs then it should be considered invalid. But these studies appear to be compiling legitimate data in an effort to better deal with serious issues some young people have. Scientific conclusions aren't always right, but they shouldn't be censored on the basis of political correctness as seems to have happened here.
 

Calico

Est. Contributor
#6
Are people here saying there is no such thing as teens thinking they are trans when in fact they are not? Is it not possible for people to transition and then decide later they are not that gender after all?

I understand why trans people would have an issue with all this because they know that people out there will use these studies and stories to justify their bigotry and to not accept someone as being trans. I am sure there are people out there who are just deciding they are trans because of the popularity in it or because they are experiencing body dysmorphia so they are thinking they are trans and I am sure there are parents out there who just flat out refuse to admit their kid is trans and use these articles to justify their lack of acceptance ignoring the fact their kid showed signs in early childhood and the parents are lying to themselves about it. I do believe Jazz Jennings is truly trans. A parent knows their kid better than anyone else so they would know if their kid is truly transgender or not (assuming they are not closed minded).
 

Sapphyre

Est. Contributor
#7
A parent knows their kid better than anyone else so they would know if their kid is truly transgender or not (assuming they are not closed minded).
Not in this universe, unfortunately. My parents never knew me hardly at all, and never cared to. They pretended to however, because they had an ideal in mind that they wanted me to fulfill, and pretended that I filled it. The Copernican principle suggests this is not altogether rare.
 
Last edited:
#8
Racism and Eugenics were once considered 'science' and there's a fringe who still believe. I live 77 miles from Trinidad Colorado so there's a lot of debate locally, one of the Right (wing nutjob) To Life organizations right here in town is Focus On The (your own damn) Family and two years ago some idiot shot up the local Planned Parenthood clinic, about a mile and a half (for those in the civilized world, 2 Km) north of here. And some of them believe any ovum to be a full fledged person. So I can see how some people would push the panic button about people born with ovaries becoming male. WSJ is one servile organization when it's called upon to boost Republican agendae. (the latin plural of agenda) so read it, believe if you want, but I don't.

In any case, you get a quick read of why your own conclusions, ideals and perception are valid, or not.
 

dogboy

Distinguished Contributor
Distinguished Contributor
#9
Outside of Lynchburg, VA, there were thousands of forced sterilizations done to a variety of people, back in the height of the eugenics philosophy period. The so called "feeble minded" were sterilized, along with the poor, unwed mothers, some Native Americans and anyone considered undesirable. There even was a TV show made by the Discovery Channel entitled "The Lynchburg Story". The Training Center, where these occurred, is only now being shut down by the state. CVTC also housed the severely mentally disabled and those who were significantly physically disabled.
 

Sprinkles

Est. Contributor
#10
I don't see how letting children experiment with gender is any different than letting them experiment with sexuality. All that will happen is their name, pronouns, hair and/or outfit will change. None of these are permanent. They have to be 16 to start hormone replacement therapy and adults to get gender reassignment surgery. Should it turns out to be a phase (not having gender dysphoria), they will stop identifying as trans on their own. If they discover they are, indeed, trans, they'll find comfort in knowing their parents still love and accept them.
 

ESPF

Est. Contributor
#11
"Pear contagion"? Who wrights this crap? You can NOT catch gender dysphoria. You are either born with the brain of "opposite" gender or you aren't. The fact that kids are finding the information they need. And the support they need on the internet should surprise no one. Nor should the idea that they distrust Rev Dobson, The Family Defence League or any other over zealous "alt-righters "to find accuret information on the subject in a three thousand year old book of Jewish laws.
The idea that these kids should want to hangoutwith other gender dysphorics that will accept them as is... As apposed to family that have been told they can "pray the gay away" should likewise be no surprise.
-
I personally have been living MY life as my true gender (as apposed to who everyone else wanted me to be.) for the last 22years now. I have "mentored" 4 other trans-women. And to my knowledge non of us have any regrets about our transitions... Well... I guess I do regret not transitioning at twelve.
 

alwayz

Est. Contributor
#12
OK.

• No one uses the term "transgender ism" except for the people trying to devalue our existence
• Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is not a thing. It is an attempt to further pathologize our existence and claim we're full of it
• That "study" is flawed. It intentionally mixes stuff unrelated to the situation (like underlying comorbids) and tries to pass them off as "ROGD"
• It seems that one of their first moves was to cite Tumblr as an influence on participants' gender, which is a TIRED tactic by opponents. Red flag.
• People have more resources and vocabulary to express gender now. Of course the "questioning" number is going to go up as people figure themselves out. And that isn't a bad thing. I questioned for a year before I figured out I was trans all along.
I totally agree
 

Drifter

Top Contributor
#13
No one uses the term "transgender ism" except for the people trying to devalue our existence
"Transgenderism" is just a term for an observable phenomenon that is not understood. Don't assume an evil motive for everyone who uses that term.
Rapid Onset Gender Dysphoria is not a thing. It is an attempt to further pathologize our existence and claim we're full of it
It hasn't been determined if ROGD is a "thing" or not. Opinions are mixed on the subject. And you are again assuming an evil motive.
That "study" is flawed. It intentionally mixes stuff unrelated to the situation (like underlying comorbids) and tries to pass them off as "ROGD"
It's a relatively new study so it's no surprise there would be flaws. They, or others, should correct the flaws, redo the study, and see if the conclusions are the same.
It seems that one of their first moves was to cite Tumblr as an influence on participants' gender, which is a TIRED tactic by opponents. Red flag.
Regardless of the tactics used by "opponents", the influence of the internet on human beliefs and behavior is a legitimate area for research. But it's good to be vigilent for possible political motives behind the conclusions.
 
Last edited:

rennecfox

Est. Contributor
#14
I'm saying this not to be rude but to describe some of the things that make it harder for those of us who aren't Transgender in regards here, I know I'm only speaking for me, but I don't think I'm the only one.

1: Normally I think Chris Chan is a major hypocrite going from a gay basher to a transgender in recent years, but on her stance of relabeling LGBT as SLGBTQ (ok the q aside, but she doesn't always have the best judgement) I'd say in her own simple mind, she had the right idea, as wanting to provide straight people a way to feel involved and support you when not falling under one of the named genders seems reasonable.


2. Sometime, when I've known an individual long enough that we became friends before the change, a situation may come up where I may say your previous identities name, it isn't to insult who you are now and I don't think most who might say this would if they still wish to remain friends, but because in that moment I'm with you as you were then, and it's not meant to derogatory and I don't wish you hatred for the rest of my life because I called you by your previous name in an anecdote. ><;.

I guess what I'm really trying to say here is "sometimes it feels like in certain situations, not all... that the goal is always to feel discriminated against and not even give others a chance to be opened to"
 

tiny

Distinguished Contributor
Distinguished Contributor
#15
• No one uses the term "transgender ism" except for the people trying to devalue our existence
"Transgenderism" is just a term for an observable phenomenon that is not understood. Don't assume an evil motive for everyone who uses that term.
I don't understand how the word "transgenderism" could devalue anyone who's transgender. How can the use of a common suffix be offensive?

Is the term "Americanism" offensive to Americans? Or "hyperthoiridism" offensive to those with an overactive thyroid? As an atheist, it doesn't bother me that "atheism" exists. :-/

Isn't it more important that people are talking about transgender issues than on authoritarian grammar rules?
 

OmiOMy

Est. Contributor
#16
I don't understand how the word "transgenderism" could devalue anyone who's transgender. How can the use of a common suffix be offensive?

Is the term "Americanism" offensive to Americans? Or "hyperthoiridism" offensive to those with an overactive thyroid? As an atheist, it doesn't bother me that "atheism" exists. :-/

Isn't it more important that people are talking about transgender issues than on authoritarian grammar rules?
It's because it's used by the sorts of people who are of the (erroneous) belief that this a belief system, or something that can be recruited into. I've literally never seen it outside of the sorts of people who do that kind of thing. It's not about the grammar.
 

tiny

Distinguished Contributor
Distinguished Contributor
#17
It's because it's used by the sorts of people who are of the (erroneous) belief that this a belief system, or something that can be recruited into. I've literally never seen it outside of the sorts of people who do that kind of thing. It's not about the grammar.
Huh. I'm... lost for words. How does a word become so loaded with ideology? How can it not have anything to do with grammar? I'm really confused by this.

Anyone could innocently form the word transgender+ism from legitimate stems. Words like "transgender" crop up so rarely in conversation for most people... How is anyone supposed to know that transgender+ism is offensive? And on whose authority can they say that? It seems like this idea has come out of nowhere!

Is there a politically-correct alternative to the term "transgenderism"? Wouldn't it be better to legitimise the word through its "correct" usage rather than "ban" it?

Forgive my scepticism, but it almost sounds (in this one case) like some transgender people are looking for an excuse to feel persecuted. I can understand the need to be constantly on-guard against abuse when many transgender people have faced terrible experiences from bigotry. I get the need to "fight for your rights" as a trans-person. But... I just think you need to pick your battles.

I'll admit that I don't understand gender much, let alone transgenderism (ah! what's the word?!), but that doesn't mean that I can't accept trans-people. How you live is none of my business, and if it harms no one and makes you happy, I'm in full support! Everyone is different, and it's a delight to meet new and interesting people... It's one of the reasons I like living near London! So many cultures, so many fascinating people! Everyone should just "be themselves". Words aren't that important. Actions speak louder than words. :smile:
 

Drifter

Top Contributor
#18
It's because it's used by the sorts of people who are of the (erroneous) belief that this a belief system, or something that can be recruited into. I've literally never seen it outside of the sorts of people who do that kind of thing. It's not about the grammar.
As tiny asked, is there a politically-correct alternative to the term "transgenderism"?

Personally, I have no problem at all believing gender identity is just as real for transgenders as it is for cisgenders. But I think you are overlooking an important point in this study. Many people go through difficulties and confusion with their sexuality as they grow up. They turn to the internet looking for something to believe in and find all kinds of possible explanations for the feelings they have. If we assume all who believe they are transgender actually are transgender, true transgenders will be left with the same problems you accuse the study of causing. For example, a person claiming to be transgender but who wasn't actually 'born with' that gender identity, might grow out of it in time. If we don't make a distinction between a gender identity deeply implanted in the subconscious in the early stages of life and an identity acquired later in life through psychological means, people would assume all transgenders could "grow out of it".

This study appears to be making that distinction.
 

tiny

Distinguished Contributor
Distinguished Contributor
#19
As tiny asked, is there a politically-correct alternative to the term "transgenderism"?
Talking about "politically correct" (PC) terms, is it possible that some terms are only non-PC in certain regions/cultures...? So "transgenderism" might be non-PC in New York, but perfectly fine in England?

I've been quite taken aback when I've heard Americans use the word "handicapped", for example. That would be considered offensive/ignorant in the UK. So maybe "transgenderism" is only offensive in the US? Or in a certain town? Or... only by certain people...? :dunno:

Personally, I have no problem at all believing gender identity is just as real for transgenders as it is for cisgenders. But I think you are overlooking an important point in this study. Many people go through difficulties and confusion with their sexuality as they grow up. They turn to the internet looking for something to believe in and find all kinds of possible explanations for the feelings they have. If we assume all who believe they are transgender actually are transgender, true transgenders will be left with the same problems you accuse the study of causing. For example, a person claiming to be transgender but who wasn't actually 'born with' that gender identity, might grow out of it in time. If we don't make a distinction between a gender identity deeply implanted in the subconscious in the early stages of life and an identity acquired later in life through psychological means, people would assume all transgenders could "grow out of it".

This study appears to be making that distinction.
There are "gender fluid" people too, apparently, whose gender varies over time. :-/

Can't we just ditch the idea of gender and let people be whoever they want to be? I don't understand what gender means if people are free to be themselves.

I really hope that doesn't sound insensitive -- I don't mean it that way at all...

But maybe we should ditch the whole idea of "male" and "female" in our language. Get rid of he/she (etc.) Mr/Mrs (etc.), and gent/ladies, and treat everyone equally.
 

Drifter

Top Contributor
#20
Talking about "politically correct" (PC) terms, is it possible that some terms are only non-PC in certain regions/cultures...? So "transgenderism" might be non-PC in New York, but perfectly fine in England?

I've been quite taken aback when I've heard Americans use the word "handicapped", for example. That would be considered offensive/ignorant in the UK. So maybe "transgenderism" is only offensive in the US? Or in a certain town? Or... only by certain people...? :dunno:
I guess any word we use to describe people as being somehow different from 'the rest of us' will become offensive over time. When that happens we come up with a new label that means the same thing but is acceptable because it sounds different. I think what we are really trying to accomplish with political correctness is to come up with labels that don't imply some kind of defect. That's not easy to do when we are talking about the compulsive behavior and attitudes of ANY tiny segment of the population. It is hard, as a society, to get away from the idea that 'those people' just aren't quite 'normal'.
There are "gender fluid" people too, apparently, whose gender varies over time. :-/

Can't we just ditch the idea of gender and let people be whoever they want to be? I don't understand what gender means if people are free to be themselves.

I really hope that doesn't sound insensitive -- I don't mean it that way at all...

But maybe we should ditch the whole idea of "male" and "female" in our language. Get rid of he/she (etc.) Mr/Mrs (etc.), and gent/ladies, and treat everyone equally.
I don't think you're being insensitive at all.

As I see it, the inescapable practical reality is that we will continue to distinguish between males and females in certain situations such as prisons, military barracks, and public locker rooms and showers. Men and women will continue to be treated differently in many cases involving medical care. We make these distinctions based on anatomical gender.

What's being called into question now is how we define gender for official purposes. To make the switch from seeing gender as a physical state to seeing it as a mental state is quite a jump. This is not to say that gender differences are only physical, but I don't believe the people who are demanding an immediate change to the status quo are fully aware of the complications. They seem to want to define gender exclusively as a mental/emotional state and ignore the physical aspects altogether. I don't see this as being realistic.

I also think we should stop talking about 'equality'. Everybody seems to think they know what it means but it is such a deep, complex, philosophical subject that it would be next to impossible to get any kind of agreement on it. I think it would be helpful from a social and legal perspective to forget about 'equal' and concentrate on 'fair'.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top