I can't prove it so it would be in extreme poor taste to mention names.
Transgender rights discussion
- Thread starter crappycraperson
- Start date
If you're not trying to weasel out of anything, name these posters.
Ah, okay. So you're just entering the debate with a blind assumption that those in opposition to you are doing so in bad faith.
Since it's just my feeling about them, what benefit would that bring?
I'm just glad we've now cleared up that you are not engaging the debate in good faith.
No one’s asking you to prove anything. You said you believe some posters in this debate are transphobic and I’m asking who they are.
So who are they?
It's not a blind assumption because I formed that opinion after interacting with them and seeing what they wrote.
I don't enter this thread assuming everyone that disagrees with me is a transphobe. Some people I disagree with have made interesting points and seem to be debating in good faith.
Mate, I don't engage with someone I believe to be a transphobe. I engage with people who seem to be arguing in good fate. So if I engage, you can assume it's in good faith, otherwise you won't read a word from me.
I don't believe anything good can come out of my answer, so I won't give one. Let me know what good can come of it and maybe it'll change my mind.
Yes, I include this thread as part of my interactions online.
So when you said, and I quote, "I wasn't referring to this thread," you were, in fact, referring to this thread?
This is like the 90% thing all over again. Whenever you’re pushed on what you post you go into hiding (like now) or say it’s in generalities (like the 90% thing).
I'm talking about the consent rules. Sorry, more so it seems clear the rule is so it will be always be protecting the child.
I made a general point about the transgender women in sports discussion being poisoned by insincere people weaponizing the issue.
I was asked if I was referring to this thread specifically.
I said no, in general, online and real life discussions.
I was accused of (or at least it was my interpretation of it) inferring some people here might have adopted that tactic without have the guts to say so.
So, even though my original comment was about the wider discussion in general, I don't want that to be interpreted as this specific thread being an oasis of reason, not affected by that poisoning. So,
With those people, I will not engage, so if I engage with someone, they can expect I see them as arguing in good faith and I will be doing the same.
I don't have the skills to make clearer than this, so I hope you understand.
It's only that if you want to keep misunderstanding what I say on purpose. I've explained I used the 90% as an expression in the moment, to keep pressing on that just shows you want to be annoying, nothing else.
I'm waiting for you to tell me the benefit of me calling someone a transphobe on redcafe. The mods wouldn't do anything since it's just my perception and the person I named would get a free "see I'm a poor victim, trying to debate honestly and being called a transphobe by the intolerant leftists" card. I don't want that.
The last time I posted research in this thread, I posted 3 articles. The first, I was told was "disputed" (no reason given), the second got no response, and the third got a link to a blog post contradicting one of its assertions, from an openly anti-trans professor.
Just now I've been told that a tiny advocacy group that promotes conversion therapy for gay people might have something objective to say about trans medicine, with the usual pro-forma recital about grey areas applied to a fringe advocacy group
I don't think there is an iota of good faith debate happening in this thread. That's my academic take.
Your first link is a single-author product in a shady journal, I wouldn't go within 10 feet of it. Your second link looks plausible.
...
lightbringer, hobbers (near 100% probability)
you (75%)
mozf, alex99 (50%)
I'm not reporting anybody (I think I've done 1 report in 13 years on this site), but the question was asked and I thought I could share my impressions based on this and other threads.
And as I said, it's very convenient for these "general" points to be made, but not apply to this thread in the same way that they (apparently) "generally" do.
Surely you see why people are calling out these generalisations?
"90% of people debating from this side are transphobes, but this, inexplicably, does not apply here and I just bring this up as a general point. Don't ask me any questions."
The last time I posted research in this thread, I posted 3 articles. The first, I was told was "disputed" (no reason given), the second got no response, and the third got a link to a blog post contradicting one of its assertions, from an openly anti-trans professor.
Just now I've been told that a tiny advocacy group that promotes conversion therapy for gay people might have something objective to say about trans medicine, with the usual pro-forma recital about grey areas applied to a fringe advocacy group
I don't think there is an iota of good faith debate happening in this thread. That's my academic take.
Your first link is a single-author product in a shady journal, I wouldn't go within 10 feet of it. Your second link looks plausible.
...
lightbringer, hobbers (near 100% probability)
you (75%)
mozf, alex99 (50%)
I'm not reporting anybody (I think I've done 1 report in 13 years on this site), but the question was asked and I thought I could share my impressions based on this and other threads.
Yeah, you're not baselessly accusing me of being a transphobe while refusing to engage with my posts.
It's not inexplicably. It doesn't apply the same way because redcafe is a well moderated space, obvious transphobes are weeded out, so while in the general society the majority use this issue as a weapon, in this thread in this specific forum, it's a minority who do it, and that's a good thing. We are left with the less obvious transphobes, those who never step out of place to the point we can clearly identify them.
Don't ask me any questions? Mate I've been replying to this thread almost non stop today...
Surely you have to see why you entering a discussion and immediately declaring that you believe 90% of people on side of it are bad faith actors has drawn criticism, and why people can no longer consider you to be arguing in good faith?
I can see the first, not the second. If you care to explain I appreciate it.
No research is to be trusted unless it backs up what one believes. The opposing side is anti-science, after all. No need to even give specifics!
On the other hand, assertions from a fringe advocacy group must be treated seriously, without considering the garbage source.
PS - since you said, direct quote, "No Evidence that Transgender Interventions are Safe for Children". the reason hobbers goes on about not trusting research is because there's a whole bunch of research about the health benefits of treating GDI with hormones, etc, including in people under 18. Which I have posted earlier in this thread.
Thanks for your input - and as I said a few pages ago - there's still so much research to be done in this area before we advocate for kids to have surgery or heavy medical intervention. Although the first part of your post is wholly irrelevant, and you've avoided answering the question I was asking. Is there a replication issue in science research and does that apply to trans research? Are there external pressures relating to trans research?The last time I posted research in this thread, I posted 3 articles. The first, I was told was "disputed" (no reason given), the second got no response, and the third got a link to a blog post contradicting one of its assertions, from an openly anti-trans professor.
Just now I've been told that a tiny advocacy group that promotes conversion therapy for gay people might have something objective to say about trans medicine, with the usual pro-forma recital about grey areas applied to a fringe advocacy group
I don't think there is an iota of good faith debate happening in this thread. That's my academic take.
Your first link is a single-author product in a shady journal, I wouldn't go within 10 feet of it. Your second link looks plausible.
...
I can't comment on mozf and lightbringer as I haven't seen any of their posts.
I can say with 100% certainty that Alex99, hobbers and myself aren't transphobes. Being cautious on this topic doesn't make you a transphobe - it's a nonsense assertion and it's an annoying tactic used repeatedly by people on the other side of the debate that yourself, maniak and stepic seem to revert to rather than discussing the topic at hand.
I'd be interested what posts specifically of mine can be considered transphobic.
I must be closing on 200 posts in this thread, how many do you want me to quote showing me debating specific points?
Fair point. I’m obviously guilty of over-simplifying this. In my defence it’s a very long time since I did a paeds rotation and that was with very young kids, where there was never any question of consent not being left entirely up to parents.
The older they get, the more say they are going to have in any procedure or intervention. Although puberty blockers will, by definition, tend to be used in kids that are much younger than 16. Which moves the consent needle further away from them and further towards the parents. Not that it really matters. Parents will have the best interests of their child at heart anyway.
Dude you were literally called out on this page about believing some people are transphobes and didn’t back it up when pushed on it. You were then called out about this made up statistic which you had to change what you mean to go from specific to general. So I don’t need to look up your 200 posts - it’s all there in the last couple of pages.
Yes.
I have no idea, it's way outside my field (which I deliberately chose to be as non-political, non-fancy, and non-pharma-linked as possible), I would guess yes.
Saying "replication crisis" or "pressure" isn't a blank cheque to ignore every study whose outcome that you don't like.
There are two Catch-22s used in this thread quite often:
1.
A. The later the transition, the more concrete the advantage for trans women over cis women.
B. Early transition is harmful/unsafe/mutilation
2.
A. Early transition should only be allowed if supported by high-quality studies.
B. We need a ton of data from early transitioners to make these high-quality studies.
It's why it's very important to undermine the credibility of every single study that shows a positive outcome for trans therapy - the earlier the age of the study participants, the more urgent this becomes. Because that could break the second catch-22, which would even risk the first one.
With yours, I think it was stuff in (probably) other threads about 6-12 months ago. Can't get more specific, I don't bookmark posts.
With alex, I didn't have that impression at all, till the posts today, and their response to finding out the pediatrics association is bullshit.
If you are asking about hobbers, ... I don't really know what to say, I guess everything is in the eye of the beholder
With lightbringer, it was a big dust-up a few months ago. An argument kicked off by a particular phrasing choice, which went on for a couple of pages.
Mozf is my weakest one, should have said 30% or something.
Pogue and CR have been active and aggressive in this thread, on your side, but I never got that vibe from them.
And you have the face to say others aren't arguing in good faith?
It's like every post I write you just ignore and keep coming back with stuff I've previously explained.
Absolute insanity.
Aggressive? 
Aggressive?
uhhh actually i was thinking of cr and cr alone
cr: i was thinking of pogue and pogue alone
uhhh actually i was thinking of cr and cr alone
cr: i was thinking of pogue and pogue alone
@berbatrick There’s nothing aggressive about Carolina Red - one of the nicest folks here.
50% what?
No Corinthian, it's your motivation behind your posts that might be transphobic, only those who are righteous can interpret this
I just realised mozf is you @Murder on Zidane's Floor.
Yeah, weird because everyone hates me.
But now that I know that mozf = you, I can safely say that I have seen your posts and they’re not even remotely transphobic. It’s a massive stretch to consider anyone in this thread posting caution on this topic is transphobic.
Yes, that is how medical treatments work. The people involved are the doctors, the patients, and parents if needed. Minors are getting irreversible treatments all the time, and the "inability" to consent is never brought up. At no point was voting age, the age of consent or the military a conversation.
I'm kind of amazed that you managed to miss the point here.
Appreciate it.
I imagine some people might be transphobic and use the arguments to further their agenda, as others have said. If this is the case, then you have to extend the exact same logic to the people supporting childhood transition, that they have ulterior motives as well.
This gets us nowhere and is just divisive.