The costs of trans visibility
Yesterday, Dylan Mulvaney broke her silence: https://www.tiktok.com/@dylanmulvaney/vi....
For context, this is a trans influencer who built a 10 million strong following on TikTok. She took a brand deal with budweiser to post an ad on an instagram, and the anti-trans right went absolutely ballistic, calling for a boycott, condemning the company, and to some perhaps unknowable degree it influenced that Budweiser sales dropped by a 1/4 and
. Dylan speaks more personally about the effect of the hatred on her.
What strikes me about this story is that it is just about visibility. This isn't inclusion in sports or gender-affirming care for minors, it was just that a trans person was visible. This wasn't even visibility in a TV commerical that a poor right-winger is forced to see, it was an ad on her own instagram page. We're all in our own social media algorithm influenced bubbles, but from my vantage point it really has seemed that in the last year or so things have just gotten worse for trans people and the backlash to even minor visibility is growing.
We need to do better.
As far as I'm aware science is not capable of identifying what exactly determines specific parts of brain chemistry to that level of precision, whether it be for gender or literally anything else.
We do know that a large part of the development process in the brain occurs during the second trimester whereas development of sexual organs occurs earlier though, so it's entirely conceivable that there could be differences at different stages of
So it’s acceptable to claim trans is a bio developmental disorder? Even though it’s a claim based on evidence of nothing? Is there not a double standard here?
Hypothetically, if the brain chemical determining gender can be identified, should each newborn get a brain scan to determine gender? If there is a mismatch, what then? Gender surgery on the newborn?
So it’s acceptable to claim trans is a bio developmental disorder? Even though it’s a claim based on evidence of nothing? Is there not a double standard here?
Only if you would consider being left handed a bio developmental disorder (or maybe to be a little tighter of an analogy being left handed and right footed or vice-versa).
It's an unusual difference in development but that doesn't mean it's a disorder, with all the negative connotation that attaches.
I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "claim based on evidence of nothing". There have been studies that show evidence of brain structure differences between transgender and cisgender people, e.g.
As far as I'm aware science is not capable of identifying what exactly determines specific parts of brain chemistry to that level of precision, whether it be for gender or literally anything else.
We do know that a large part of the development process in the brain occurs during the second trimester whereas development of sexual organs occurs earlier though, so it's entirely conceivable that there could be differences at different stages of
This is basically the theory for homosexuality-- that at different stages in utero the mother produces different levels of hormones, and that these hormones affect the sexuality of the fetus. It would definitely be interesting if you have both sexuality and "gender" undergoing different processes at the same time.
Only if you would consider being left handed a bio developmental disorder (or maybe to be a little tighter of an analogy being left handed and right footed or vice-versa).
It's an unusual difference in development but that doesn't mean it's a disorder, with all the negative connotation that attaches.
I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "claim based on evidence of nothing". There have been studies that show evidence of brain structure dif
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-0....
How well do those correspond to the brain structure differences in homosexuals?
This is basically the theory for homosexuality-- that at different stages in utero the mother produces different levels of hormones, and that these hormones affect the sexuality of the fetus. It would definitely be interesting if you have both sexuality and "gender" undergoing different processes at the same time.
Well I think sexuality and gender are generally considered to be independent in the strict sense of the worse, so while I'd have to do a bunch of research to know for sure I assume that they are thought to be determined by entirely separate processes.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-0....
How well do those correspond to the brain structure differences in homosexuals?
This is way beyond my level of knowledge. I have looked into gender research enough to know that these differences exist and to be able to quite quickly find an example paper but once you get into the specifics of the differences and how that might compare to differences in other individuals I'm completely out of my depth.
As far as I'm aware science is not capable of identifying what exactly determines specific parts of brain chemistry to that level of precision, whether it be for gender or literally anything else.
We do know that a large part of the development process in the brain occurs during the second trimester whereas development of sexual organs occurs earlier though, so it's entirely conceivable that there could be differences at different stages of
If it's simply chemical, it can be affected environmentally, so claims about things making you trans and viceversa become true.
So in order to claim trans-ness is 100% genetic you need a whole set of very strong genetical/biological claims (which btw could exist), including different neurological patterns and so on, a simple reference to chemical processes wouldn't suffice I think.
If instead we are claiming in-uterus development, that's VERY different (and could be true as well). In that case both people who say "innate" and people who say "environmental" would be right, with the environment being only the uterine one (so mother diet, behavior, genes and so on)
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-0....
How well do those correspond to the brain structure differences in homosexuals?
Afaik from the papers i read trans people brain look more like the opposite sex brains when analyzed objectively. So there is some biological substance behind the claim gender identity (opposite to biological sex) can exist as a biological basis, in some cases.
Only if you would consider being left handed a bio developmental disorder (or maybe to be a little tighter of an analogy being left handed and right footed or vice-versa).
It's an unusual difference in development but that doesn't mean it's a disorder, with all the negative connotation that attaches.
I'm also not quite sure what you mean by "claim based on evidence of nothing". There have been studies that show evidence of brain structure dif
We don’t need brain imaging to observe that a bio male who identifies as trans is more likely to be feminine than a typical male. Brain activity is associated with just about every aspect of self. It doesn’t follow that brain activity is the root cause of every aspect of self.
Also, here is a more recent study:
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20...
This is way beyond my level of knowledge. I have looked into gender research enough to know that these differences exist and to be able to quite quickly find an example paper but once you get into the specifics of the differences and how that might compare to differences in other individuals I'm completely out of my depth.
Part of the alternative theory of transgenderism is that some of it is due to repressed homosexuality, so showing some brain scan differences isn't enough if you find the same differences in homosexuals.
Part of the alternative theory of transgenderism is that some of it is due to repressed homosexuality, so showing some brain scan differences isn't enough if you find the same differences in homosexuals.
Let's posit that is the problem, then sexual attraction would clarify things i guess?
A woman who self identifies as a man and likes women (trans hetero man) could be more probably not actually trans, while a trans gay man would very probable, almost certainly not be a lesbian?
How can a biological woman be a lesbian that wrongly assess to be trans, if she likes individuals with dicks? That doesn't make sense semantically or otherwise.
Let's posit that is the problem, then sexual attraction would clarify things i guess?
A woman who self identifies as a man and likes women (trans hetero man) could be more probably not actually trans, while a trans gay man would very probable, almost certainly not be a lesbian?
How can a biological woman be a lesbian that wrongly assess to be trans, if she likes individuals with dicks? That doesn't make sense semantically or otherwise.
I don't think repressed homosexuality is the only pathway. You've got AGP males who are still attracted to females. Women who are naturally more fluid with their sexuality, and also people who have suffered from abuse.
Hypothetically, if the brain chemical determining gender can be identified, should each newborn get a brain scan to determine gender? If there is a mismatch, what then? Gender surgery on the newborn?
It's veering towards philosophy/ethics again and I'm not generally a fan of answering hypotheticals so I wasn't going to answer but as you're persistent I'll give a brief reply. The short answer is that even if we were certain we could detect a person was trans at birth then I don't think anything should be done. Instead I would be in favour of providing support as they were growing up to give them all the best options for how they choose to live their life. If our technology was advanced to this point that would hopefully also mean the options for managing puberty and transitioning later in life would be significantly improved as well. This is much more guided by my general ethics being towards not interfering medically in a life without the person's input than anything specific to trans issues though.
Making concessions when necessary is a part of honest discourse. If you're unable to do that then we call that intellectual dishonesty.
Yeah. Intellectual honesty is a two way street though and I haven't seen much in the way of concessions from the anti-trans group. Quite the opposite.
So if intellectual honesty on our side just leads to more intellectual dishonesty on your side then whats the motivation for open discourse?
Yeah. Intellectual honesty is a two way street though and I haven't seen much in the way of concessions from the anti-trans group. Quite the opposite.
So if intellectual honesty on our side just leads to more intellectual dishonesty on your side then whats the motivation for open discourse?
I don't have a side.
Yeah. Intellectual honesty is a two way street though and I haven't seen much in the way of concessions from the anti-trans group. Quite the opposite.
So if intellectual honesty on our side just leads to more intellectual dishonesty on your side then whats the motivation for open discourse?
Who's "anti-trans" and what would that entail?
Who in this thread is advocating about removing any human right or civil libertyof trans people, or directly damaging them in any way?
There is no anti-trans side, at least not ITT.
I don't divide the world up into teams like you do.
Given that you do that, I'm sure it's impossible for you to imagine it any other way-- like the cartoon about the fish who is like "what the hell is water?"-- so I can't help you there.
"trans being a front for other mental issues" is an inaccurate reflection of the position that people are taking. The primary concern is people with underlying issues picking up on "trans" because it's so pervasive in the culture and being funneled into gender treatments when they would be better served by other interventions. Or people with only a moderate degree of gender dysphoria that could be managed in other ways being pushed into mo
Its not inaccurate, its just worded in a way that makes you have a moment of uncomfortable introspection. You spend the rest of your first paragraph trying to rephrase it in a way that makes you feel more comfortable holding that opinion. Like you immediately start going into Social Contagion which I've already debunked as an anti-trans dog whistle for a proposed mental disorder.
Do you even know how many of the UK's 67,000,000 population were on puberty blockers? Less than 100. Why are you convinced there is a pervasive problem with the model going too far? It couldn't be the point I've been brow beating for the last week about you guys being victims of misinformation and propaganda could it?
Its not inaccurate, its just worded in a way that makes you have a moment of uncomfortable introspection. You spend the rest of your first paragraph trying to rephrase it in a way that makes you feel more comfortable holding that opinion. Like you immediately start going into Social Contagion which I've already debunked as an anti-trans dog whistle for a proposed mental disorder.
Do you even know how many of the UK's 67,000,000 populatio
If you opened a thread about infibulation being bad and someone answered you know what, less than 100 little girls were infibulated last year in the UK, stop talking about it, how would you feel?
Until you understand that the only number of minors on puberty blockers because of gender disphoria we accept is 0, like the number of infibulations we would accept, it's hard to understand each others.
