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.
I am a rational person with libertarian, rightwing preferences. Pretty sure radical leftists wouldn't consider me "an ally" of trans people.
Btw the origins of trans ness would have no effect, in my world, in what society has to do in their regards.
Where do you differ from right-wingers to lean libertarian?
What can science say about whether or not the self exists? This question is in the moral domain.
I will tell the future: The Woke are already running the experiment of trans affirmation + actualization. Eventually, I will lead the experiment of self affirmation + actualization. Those who choose the path I am forging will have such superior long term outcomes on quality of life that looking to science for leadership on how to act will be a joke.
pro abortion first trimester makes me more moderate than republicans I guess on that; I am for free drugs (not only cannabis), against all tariffs (yes, all, no exceptions, unilaterally, worldwide).
I want the FDA abolished, SS and medicare heavily reformed to pay out less, and later.
I want 90-95% of the financial regulations removed, and most regulations in most other sectors as well (approx going back 100+ years, with just small modifications because of technology).
I oppose the Sherman act, and in general all the "anti big business" positioning shared also by many republicans.
i think robber Barons era economics and welfare are the best, and lochner era jurisprudence.
I think government is 100% responsible for why a 100 meter skyscraper can't be built anymore in 2 years and that everything that stands in the way of it happening again should be removed (yes this includes safety and environmental regulations of course).
i think we should be allowed to do things faster not slower, given better technology.
They weren't robber barons, they were robbed, by government, btw.
I am against subsidies to the private sector in general, against using defense expense inefficiently for jobs in republican states, against Christianity being pushed in schools or government buildings in any way or form.
i want unions banned in the public sector, including police unions (which republicans love).
i mean you should be getting the picture, ask if you want more details about specifics.
debt and deficit ceilings should be in the constitution with no exceptions allowed.
pro abortion first trimester makes me more moderate than republicans I guess on that; I am for free drugs (not only cannabis), against all tariffs (yes, all, no exceptions, unilaterally, worldwide).
I want the FDA abolished, SS and medicare heavily reformed to pay out less, and later.
I want 90-95% of the financial regulations removed, and most regulations in most other sectors as well (approx going back 100+ years, with just small modificati
That's cool. I wasn't challenging you. I was genuinely curious.
I just find it interesting that you depart with libertarians on the state killing people, wrt the Israel-Palestine thread.
That's cool. I wasn't challenging you. I was genuinely curious.
I just find it interesting that you depart with libertarians on the state killing people, wrt the Israel-Palestine thread.
Because I am totally not anarchist.
Libertarians these days tend to be that.
I am also pro helping Ukraine, pro NATO in general and so on.
I see the role of the state as defense of borders, militaries, judicial, law enforcement, protection of bodies and property. I can accept the fed more than libertarians tend to do as well and a few other things like postal services and stuff.
Normal classic liberal stuff, think of a socially progressive, anti slavery pro business person from 1850, something like that.
I don't love some things the state does but I don't think they are as evil and damaging to society as many other public interventions, intrusions, regulations.
Basically the idea is that when first best has proven to be impossible , like free trade internationally if no one patrols the waters, then it's ok for the state to fill that gap
Common sense is exactly the way you avoid the worst disasters, by using it as a check to prevent unwarranted radical change in general.
I'd have to have common sense defined for me. Since you want to talk about things that I widely see as empirical issues with the type of moralizing language that seems all too common in your posts, I need to know that common sense is not in itself a morally abhorrent view to take -- in the sense that I think epistemology is widely normative and having a common sense epistemology often translates purely into rhetoric, which most people would agree is not truth apt. This sentence is a great example of how common sense can oftentimes boil down to just a rhetorical tool. If we actually take a second to think about what you're saying, common sense is a check on unwarranted (IE UNNECESSARY) radical change. But could not common sense also be a way to justify WARRANTED radical change? For instance, there was the montreal protocol that banned CFCs in order to prevent the degradation of the ozone layer. There was also the implementation of vaccine mandates throughout the 19th century in the US. For me, these are both extremely common sense issues, and they were broadly brought on by scientific breakthroughs and the wide acceptance of them very quickly.
Common sense to me is simply a rhetorical trick, because it can really be used to justify anything. Even tyrants have used common sense to justify notions of "the strong should be in power" or "our nation is clearly superior and should rule". Essentially unless it can be defined well, common sense is just a thought terminating cliche, akin to saying "most reasonable people would agree with me", which is plainly an informal fallacy (appeal to popular consensus).
The idea that "science" should structurally supplant common sense (=aggregated wisdom of the crowds) is deeply undemocratic and abhorrent. Especially given we know, as an absolute certainty, that "science" the way you guys define is , is completly captured by political processes, in the social sciences.
To me this is just more rhetoric. I'm not at all convinced that "science" is "completely captured by political processes". If that were the case, why do we see that ultimately the most money for science research is in the most instrumental fields (STEM). Scientific publishing does have its issues, but this whole idea that the only influence on academia that is identifiable whatsoever is marxist/post-modernist ideology. I mean we're talking about trans people in this section, but jumping ahead to vaccines and climate change, I don't see what exactly is the political capture of vaccine research or climate change research. If you can identify some specific problems with them without poisoning the well, I'd be glad to hear them. But right now I'm not at all impressed by your epistemological foundations.
On the topic of "transgender acceptance", the topic is clear: i completly refuse to damage the majority to try to "accept" a tiny minority, i think that approach is morally horrific, anti-human, and destructive for society.
Same reason why affirmative action is such a monstrous policy.
You're a libertarian, no? Isn't there something in libertarianism that sees it as a moral horror for the majority to impose on the minority? I thought the issue libertarians had with these sorts of class/social group based rights is that they impose themselves on the INDIVIDUALS, not because they impose themselves on the COLLECTIVE MAJORITY. If your only issue is that you find it morally abhorrent to impose acceptance of a minority, then it's completely valid for people to impose segregation, higher prices for certain races, not consider hiring women out of belief that they are inferior, etc. I think that would make us worse off as a society, and I think that "common sense" would agree š For real though, I don't see why you think you have the monopoly on this type of moralizing so I'm not even going to consider it as an argument. If you have some argument for why it's morally abhorrent, make it then.
Tolerating a minority (ie avoiding being destructive on purpose against that minority) is the cap. There is no moral mandate to sacrifice ANYTHING to "help" a minority being "accepted", to "include" (which doesn't mean anything in actual reality).
I said i am in favor of having women who live as men participate against men in sports. But you keep going with "the data", in the "scientific" way. If people whose morally value i can 100% trust started publishing research in papers whose editors moral value i can 100% trust showing that men who live as women aren't better at sports than women i would have no problem.
But that won't happen because of the common sense thing above, and this is not something that can change with time you understand that yes? it's not like researching subatomic particles where we keep discovering things. There is nothing to discover about averages and tails in performances in sports of biological men vs biological women. It's settled.
We're not talking about biological men vs women. There were already caps on testosterone levels and a time requirement for how long you are on hormones. I'm willing to believe that you would accept scientific proof that they have no advantage to women, but then I'm just at a loss as to why you would find it so crazy that other people thought that the best research showed that this was the case and therefore started implementing protocols. I mean see the study that I linked above that showed precisely that type of outlook, and not using it to say with 100% certainty that trans women have no advantage, but saying that despite these findings more research is needed. That's not the type of statement you would see if they were trying to use it a propaganda for the trans agenda.
I think most people, especially Christians, would never agree that even if there was no advantage, that trans women should compete against cis women. I respect that you at least have some conditions that you would have to see met to where you wouldn't have a problem with it.
The vaccination example was very specific: vaccination mandates for not-at-risk people were justified by the fact that the vaccine sterilized against infection. That was the talk for months, and the "scientifical" (and often legal, in countries that wouldn't have allowed mandates constitutionally without a proven huge protective effect for others) reason for mandates (for the not-at-risk; mandating it on elders or otherwise weak people for paternalistic reasons is a completly different topic).
You understand we have proof that the protection vs infection fades quickly right? as all models would have predicted for an RNA virus with a high rate of functional mutation?
How the hell can you mandate something because it protect others on 4 or 6 months of data, if you know there is a very high chance such protection fades, and isn't necessarily close to 100% to begin with?
It has to do with using "science" to make legal changes. Lying about it, slicing it up the way you want, "peer reviewing" among yourselves patting yourselves on the back and going to a journal with people of your tribe deciding what gets published (and so becomes "science" usable to force legal changes to others).
Basically my claim is that the entirety of the intellectual production of any person or institution on the left should never be allowed to be used to justify anything with legal consequences in any field. It's not that i don't trust the left, is that i know for a certainty they weaponize that to further their horrific preferences, and i fully refuse to play their game.
You admitted they exaggerated for "trans acceptance". They do it every single time about every single topic, from the effects of unfiltered immigration to analysis of taxation to everything else. Every single time. And of course social consequences of climate change, which is the big thing today.
I have an alternative hypothesis that I will not put forward any citation for, just like you did now.
Conservatives have attacked social sciences for the past 50+ years, since pretty much Nixon. As a consequence, conservatives are less likely to join social science programs. Thus most of what gets published is not conservative due to the biases of the people who get into social science. That doesn't mean that their social science research is bad, it just means that people who join social sciences have certain convictions and are more interested in researching for instance the effects of racial bias, or certain instances in history that are particularly embarrassing for the US like slavery and segregation.
The only problem is that when we're talking about vaccines, we're talking about something that is not in the realm of social science (although does have broad social implications). Yet even with this, if you say there is some research that shows that vaccines don't hold the effect of preventing the spread for very long, that research comes from the very scientific community that you say is withholding the data. If there is some pathway through which mRNA vaccines are less effective, that would also be gotten from the data and research of the scientific community you say is politicized.
Lastly, I think it's really silly to look back with retroactive knowledge and say "oh this thing that was said wasn't true" when the information that they had at the time gave them good reason to believe that it could be true. Of course, we have to take a look at the long term data and then use that to make more informed decisions in the future, but it's also not exactly true that the science that the right was trusting was somehow superior to the science that the left was trusting. I say that knowing that broadly speaking, these things fall on political lines due to how political polarization has effected this domain. However when research does come out, people do correct the past research to try to learn from past mistakes. For instance, there is this article that is critical of vaccine mandates, passports, etc. Picking and choosing scientific research is definitely a problem, but to say that no scientists are trying to take a good faith approach to understanding these issues and that it's all a matter of peer-review capture is frankly absurd to me. The way you make a name for yourself is by making novel research. Who wouldn't want to challenge the scientific consensus if the truth was on their side? You can't just identify one aspect of the problem with scientific research and think that this problem is totalizing.
And yes it's related to trans matters, everything is correlated in these spaces, because it's the same people. Climate crisis extremists overlap with trans activists to an incredibly degree which overlap with people who wanted to put the unvaxxed in prison which overlaps with people who hate capitalim. All very highly correlated, so discussing one of those things, is discussing all those things, where "science" is used as a weapon of mass destruction to push what at the end is the same old trope: marxist revolution.
Who exactly were the political figures that were advocating with putting unvaxxed people in prison? Because from what I remember the people calling for people to be put in prison that had any actual power were conservative people like Marjorie Green and Lauren Bohbert, who wanted Fauci to be put in jail for inventing the vaccine or something, and people calling the vaccine a bioweapon. If we want to compare apples to apples the crazies, I would love to do it, because I think we'll find plenty of craziness on the right.
In general I just don't find it helpful when we're talking about trans people to go off into all these other issues, but I did just want to respond because I find a lot of what you're saying to be based upon an idiosyncratic theory of everything which I don't find compelling. I do want to throw you a bone and say that if we're talking about arguing against or pushing back on the woke people that tried to use entryism to take over various political movements like BLM, covid policy, and social science research, then I'm all for joining together to say yeah, these people are being unreasonable and we should stop that. I don't think people should have their lives ruined for making a racist joke. But I also think that climate change and vaccine efficacy are so scientifically established, as well as the fact that trans people are both anthropologically established as well as transitioning being an effective treatment for gender dysphoria. So if we want to lump those things together, fine, but I think we need to be careful when we do that to make sure we're not gesturing vaguely at them and actually giving each issue the treatment that it deserves.
new science about the link between intelligence and mental health came out
https://www.psypost.org/study-reveals-su...
it was previously claimed in this thread that the opposite was true
/This means that the same genetic influences that contribute to higher intelligence also appear to protect against the development of certain mental health issues. Notably, the heritability of anxiety and negative affect—traits associated with mood disorders like depression—was found to be greatest in individuals with below-average intelligence. This study was published in the journal Behavior Genetics./
...
/
Previous studies have consistently shown a negative association between intelligence and psychopathology. This means that individuals with lower intelligence scores are generally at a higher risk of developing various mental health issues, including anxiety, depression, and behavioral disorders. Despite this well-documented correlation, the reasons behind it remain a subject of ongoing research.
Khalif is a male with a DSD. He absolutely doesn't have Swyer syndrome as people with Swyer aren't virilized. He's clearly went through male puberty.
This is the "hate speech" that got me banned for a week. Why are we allowing an unhinged mod to ban members in good standing for STATING REALITY?!
Seriously, are the Sklansky's long gone around here or have they cosigned this on behalf of 2+2 Publishing? This is unreal. To the few here who wish to remain tethered to biological reality (and I see many of you posting what I posted, truth, without getting banned), can you please email admins to remove Crossnerd and ganstaman as this is seriously insanity.
Get rid of this person treating 2+2 as their soap box to punish us for speaking truthfully about REALITY! They are a dime-a-dozen internet janitor who is around because nobody else gives a **** to take the job. Get rid of them, ffs.
As always, coordi is completely incorrect on everything. Here's a great breakdown on how garbage the "science" is, although the Cass Review demonstrates how there is no good evidence supporting PBs. UW distorting their "data" so bad for political/funding reasons should be criminal. This revelation was what initially made me realize how much wrong is going on here. I live in Seattle and have friends whose children are not trans-identified due to this social contagion. The idea of them bringing their kid to this clinic makes me want to cry. This should not be swept under the rug. This is insanity! They are playing with children's lives.
Who are you?
The Cass Review did find that existing published studies appearing to support puberty blockers were of 'poor quality', that the evidence for the use of puberty blockers wasn't there, and that from now on, in England, puberty blockers should only be administered as part of a (rather overdue) clinically controlled trial.
Yes, there was recently a report commissioned by the government on this due to Trans Activists claiming that since banning puberty blockers in the UK, there has been a rise in suicides.
These were the main conclusions:
1, The data do not support the claim that there has been a large rise in suicide in young gender dysphoria patients at the Tavistock.
2, The way that this issue has been discussed on social media has been insensitive, distressing and dangerous, and goes against guidance on safe reporting of suicide.
3, The claims that have been placed in the public domain do not meet basic standards for statistical evidence.
4, There is a need to move away from the perception that puberty-blocking drugs are the main marker of non-judgemental acceptance in this area of health care.
5, We need to ensure high quality data in which everyone has confidence, as the basis of improved safety for this at risk group of young people.
Completely debunking the idea that young gender dysphoria patients will kill themselves if they are not allowed to medically transition.
Yes, there was recently a report commissioned by the government on this due to Trans Activists claiming that since banning puberty blockers in the UK, there has been a rise in suicides.
These were the main conclusions:
Completely debunking the idea that young gender dysphoria patients will kill themselves if they are not allowed to medically transition.
Its been 4 months. Are you expecting ritualistic suicide in protest or something?
Ehm no it has been longer elsewhere, and sample size grows a lot when you add other countries.
If lack of access to puberty blockers caused suicides, it would be clear in the combined data of all the various countries (and american states) which stopped prescribing PBs for gender disphoria.
It's actually been several years since the 2020 High Court ruling in Bell v Tavistock led to suspension of the use of blockers on the grounds that under-16s did not have the 'Gillick competence' to consent in law. Even though the Supreme Court overturned the ruling in 2021, the use of blockers never really came back due to legal fears on the part of clinicians. Activists, specifically talking about Bell v Tavistock, recently claimed that this has caused a huge spike in suicides. The government report found that it hasn't had a measurable effect on the suicide rate at all.
Ehm no it has been longer elsewhere, and sample size grows a lot when you add other countries.
If lack of access to puberty blockers caused suicides, it would be clear in the combined data of all the various countries (and american states) which stopped prescribing PBs for gender disphoria.
This is the perfect time to post this slam dunk data I've been begging yall for the last month
