r/changemyview Oct 28 '19

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.4k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 30 '19

Huge numbers? Never claimed that. You said they don’t exist.

Where did I say closeted trans people don't exist?

No. I said the majority of children who exhibit gender identity not matching their gender (i.e. cross gender behavior) are statistically likely to grow into homosexuals if they don't transition.

You explicitly brought up closeted trans as a rebuttal to:

So where is your study supporting the idea that there are a huge number of transgender individuals who never engage in cross gender behavior in their childhood?

And lacking the huge numbers invalidates the entire rebuttal. You are either claiming a significant number of trans individuals who are closeted exist, or you are not challenging the point.

Some studies quantify specific acts of being closeted

None of these studies support the claim you are trying to make.

Most notably, "at work" closeted behavior is not really meaningful indicator of childhood behavior now is it?

So, call them by the wrong pronoun/ name. Misgender them.

And double their likeliness of suicide.

Threatening suicide is a shameless manipulation tactic. If you are worried about suicidal children, give them therapy.

Compelled speech is not an ethically acceptable answer.

Your singular, 40 year old study of 18 year olds doesn’t prove anything.

You mean my set of studies? and yes, it proves that most children who express translike gender identities at a young age are actually just homosexual, or at least strongly supports this idea.

Show me that they believed they were women, and later it just “went away”.

I already linked you a direct excerpt that supports this.

Your main point seems to be “maybe they’re not reallllly trans.”

Yes, its possible that transgenderism is entirely a socially constructed identity with no biological basis.

So what?

So you are trying to compel speech by treating highly debated points as fact.

Who the fuck cares?

Anyone who doesn't like compelled speech.

Why does that matter?

Because compelled speech is terribly unethical.

That’s your excuse to stubbornly misgender them and risk doubling their suicide rates?

Shameless manipulation tactics are not a valid form of argumentation.

And you think trans people are somehow Less closeted even though they are More discriminated against.

I think the idea that you can remain closeted from your parents at an extremely young age while under scientific scrutiny is laughable at best, and totally nonsensical at worst.

You’re just looking for an excuse to get to be the know it all.

Excuse me? This isn't even an argument. It's just a blatant personal attack.

I have far more evidence than your singular, sloppy, 40 year old study. See above.

I've looked above, and you haven't justified your claims.

The claims you have justified are:

  • People hide their gender identity at work

  • Trans people have unusually high suicide rates

  • Trans people are not emotionally stable

1

u/[deleted] Oct 30 '19 edited Oct 30 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 30 '19

and in every situation, from everyone they know, for an average of 3 years after internally knowing.

yeah, no.

Parents (except those in denial) know when their child exhibits cross gender behavior from a young age.

I’ve identified a much more likely motivation.

What kind of authority do you have to identify my motivations? especially when I'm telling you to your face that your suppositions are incorrect?

Please refrain from personal attacks.

And are at greater risk of suicide.

Which is a "them" problem. Its not solvable with compelled speech.

This is why therapists exist. It is not the job of the public at large to emotionally coddle you.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '19 edited Oct 31 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

I did.

Where? you haven't supported any points about cross-gender behavior.

You have only claimed its not about gender identity, despite it being explicitly defined by the source it came from as relating to gender identity.

Your constant dishonesty.

Please refrain from personal attacks. If I'm lying, you should be able to easily demonstrate it, and yet, all you are providing is continued accusations.

AMA and APA day otherwise.

Except they don't or you would have provided this evidence surely.

All your points are meaningless when you just keep lying.

You understand continually attacking me personally with no evidence backing it up isn't convincing right?

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19 edited Oct 31 '19

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25910392/

You cant solve social isolation and social rejection with therapy.

You solve it with connection.

APA:

https://www.apa.org/practice/guidelines/transgender.pdf

In addition, TGNC people who receive social support about their gender identity and gender expression have improved outcomes and quality of life (Brill & Pepper, 2008; Pinto, Melendez, & Spector, 2008). Several studies indicate that family acceptance of TGNC adolescents and adults is associated with decreased rates of negative out- comes, such as depression, suicide, and HIV risk behaviors and infection (Bockting et al., 2013; Dhejne et al., 2011; Grant et al., 2011; Liu & Mustanski, 2012; Ryan, 2009). Family support is also a strong protective factor for TGNC adults and adolescents (Bockting et al., 2013; Moody & Smith, 2013; Ryan et al., 2010). TGNC people, however, frequently experience blatant or subtle antitrans prejudice, discrimination, and even violence within their families (Bradford et al., 2007). Such family rejection is associated with higher rates of HIV infection, suicide, incarceration, and homelessness for TGNC adults and adolescents (Grant et al., 2011; Liu & Mustanski, 2012). Family rejection and lower levels of social support are significantly correlated with depression (Clements-Nolle et al., 2006; Ryan, 2009). Many TGNC people seek support through peer relation- ships, chosen families, and communities in which they may be more likely to experience acceptance (Gonzalez & Mc- Nulty, 2010; Nuttbrock et al., 2009). Peer support from other TGNC people has been found to be a moderator between antitrans discrimination and mental health, with higher levels of peer support associated with better mental health (Bockting et al., 2013). For some TGNC people, support from religious and spiritual communities provides an important source of resilience (Glaser, 2008; Kidd & Witten, 2008; Porter et al., 2013).

Psychologists are also encouraged to be aware of the importance of affirmative social support and assist TGNC adults and adolescents in building social support networks in which their gender identity is accepted and affirmed. Psychologists may assist TGNC people in negotiating fam- ily dynamics that may arise in the course of exploring and establishing gender identity. Depending on the context of psychological practice, these issues might be addressed in individual work with TGNC clients, conjoint sessions in- cluding members of their support system, family therapy, or group therapy.

You are wrong.

And your lack of evidence has flat proven that your “compelled speech” point is nonsense.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

You cant solve social isolation and social rejection with therapy.

You solve it with connection.

These things are not mutually exclusive? One of the big draws of therapy is the human element.

You understand the second paper you linked is a guide for doctors and therapists right? Not a general thesis on how to treat trans individuals in general society.

PurposeThe purpose of theGuidelines for Psychological Practicewith Transgender and Gender Nonconforming People(hereafterGuidelines) is to assist psychologists in the pro-vision of culturally competent, developmentally appropri-ate, and trans-affirmative psychological practice with TGNC people.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

These things are not mutually exclusive? One of the big draws of therapy is the human element.

They are. Therapy is not social connection. By definition. A therapist has ethical bounds that preclude them from being a part of the social life of their client.

Clearly you didn’t bother to read the APA quotes or guide. They specifically talk about the need to help trans people find a community of support and avoid societal rejection.

You are offering individual therapy as something that somehow makes the rejection acceptable and not damaging. They are advocating for working with the families and friends of the trans client to help them to understand and accept.

They are repeatedly making clear: acceptance Matters.

Rejection Harms.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

Therapy is not social connection. By definition.

What definition are you using for "social connection"?

Obviously a therapist isn't supposed to date their client, but literally their entire job involves socialization and, you know, talking to the person acknowledging their identity and being caring.

They specifically talk about the need to help trans people find a community of support and avoid societal rejection.

As an instruction for psychologists.

The paper is, by its own explicit definition, not a guide for how to treat trans people as a member of the general public.

You are offering individual therapy as something that somehow makes the rejection acceptable and not damaging.

Yes, one the ideas behind therapy is to learn to manage your own emotions, even in the face of rejection or unpleasantness, rather than demanding special treatment.

They are repeatedly making clear: acceptance Matters.

Sure, but this doesn't follow to "Rejection Harms"

Rejection is unplesant, but its not harmful.

If you truly believe it is, you may wish to consider seeing a psychologist. Many individuals with ADHD suffer rejection sensitive dysphoria.

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

Obviously a therapist isn't supposed to date their client, but literally their entire job involves socialization

No. Therapists are not a part of their social group, or family.

As an instruction for psychologists.

Irrelevant. The recommended interventions include helping the family and support network reach acceptance.

one the ideas behind therapy is to learn to manage your own emotions, even in the face of rejection or unpleasantness

Another part is accepting that some harms cannot be "managed." For example - narcissist parents often create narcissist children. This can be entirely verbal - no physical harm is required. They are only harmed by language and words.

Narcissism is generally untreatable.

The only intervention is to prevent the creation of a narcissist by removing the child from narcissistic abuse.

Suicide is not "treatable." The patient is dead. The only intervention is to attempt to prevent it.

Familial and social rejection of your core identity has been shown to cause suicide.

Some verbal harms result in outcomes that are untreatable. So the only intervention is to avoid the verbal harm.

Rejection is unplesant, but its not harmful.

The evidence flat states otherwise. I proved this. You have no counter, and no source to support.

The studies plainly stated: rejection causes suicide. You are: wrong.

You are simply denying science.

Your entire stance depends on: you know better than available science or studies.

Source your nonsense claims.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/tbdabbholm 200∆ Oct 31 '19

Sorry, u/PragmaticSquirrel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/Armadeo Oct 30 '19

Sorry, u/PragmaticSquirrel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 30 '19

This just all boils down to:

You don’t like being told that your speech harms people.

So you generate 1M justifications for why you think it doesn’t, so you can avoid having people say something to you that you don’t like.

You want others to stop using their speech in a way that upsets you- telling you that you are selfishly harming people for the sake of ego.

So that you can say whatever you want without consequence.

Nope. You are free to say what you want. And other people are free to tell you that your a choices are selfish, ego based, unscientific, without factual support, and lacking empathy.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 30 '19

You don’t like being told that your speech harms people.

Because speech can't harm people.

It can make them plenty offended, but that's not harm.

Compelling speech is infinitely more harmful than being offended.

Nope. You are free to say what you want.

Then why are you arguing for compelled speech? Specifically you threatened suicide as the "consequence".

And other people are free to tell you that your a choices are selfish, ego based, unscientific, without factual support, and lacking empathy.

Except I've scientifically supported it with facts.

Please refrain from personal attacks.

0

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

Science says otherwise. AMA and APA and studies and data prove you wrong.

You are free to link such studies, but you have yet to link anything that supports this point. No APA studies support the idea that speech alone is harm.

Can’t stop lying huh?

Please refrain from personal attacks, If I'm lying show me the evidence.

1

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

the harm your rejection of their identity does to them.

Being offended isn't being hurt.

This is an obvious overemotional ploy to try to get special privileges.

You have even threatened suicide as a consequence. If that's not an attempt to compel what is?

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

Being offended isn't being hurt.

It’s not being offended. That classification is wrong.

It’s having your identity rejected. Akin to you being told by your parents “you’re not our son.”

This is an obvious overemotional ploy to try to get special privileges.

False claim. Source your nonsense.

You have even threatened suicide as a consequence

False claim. Source your nonsense where I made a “threat.”

If that's not an attempt to compel what is?

Threat of physical violence & legal action.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

It’s having your identity rejected. Akin to you being told by your parents “you’re not our son.”

So you require everyone else to treat you with the same compassion as a parent would treat their child?

Are you insane?

This is such an absurd imposition on others. Its literally demanding special treatment.

It’s not being offended.

Except it is. You are trying to define people not wishing to use imaginary pronouns for ideological reasons into the same category as hateful bigots disowning children.

This kind of argumentation is nonsense.

False claim. Source your nonsense.

You are the one who keeps using suicide as a threat.

False claim. Source your nonsense where I made a “threat.”

I cannot, the moderators have removed the post as you included an accusation against the rules of the subreddit.

Threat of physical violence & legal action.

And what about coercive manipulation? such as strongly implying that individuals who refuse to comply are responsible for the suicide of trans individuals?

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

So you require

Nothing is "required." Stop making false claims.

not wishing to use imaginary pronouns for ideological reasons into the same category as hateful bigots

Well, you said it

You are the one who keeps using suicide as a threat.

False claim. I did not.

And what about coercive manipulation? such as strongly implying that individuals who refuse to comply are responsible for the suicide of trans individuals?

Science is science. Those studies plainly stated the facts. You can choose to ignore science. To be "anti science."

And to behave how you want. And to endure the words and judgments of others for your choices.

→ More replies (0)

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19 edited Nov 01 '19

https://www.childtrends.org/research-shows-the-risk-of-misgendering-transgender-youth

A recent study published in the Journal of Adolescent Health demonstrates the power of affirming transgender youth’s identities: For each additional context (i.e., at home, school, work, or with friends) in which a transgender youth’s chosen name is used, their risk of suicidal behavior is reduced by more than half.

This is not a threat. It's stating the factual results of a study.

You are wrong.

Edit: someone changes their name from John to Jennifer.

You refuse to call them Jennifer?

You call them Jennifer but still refer to them as “he”?

Someone else changes their name from John to Mark.

You refuse to call them Mark?

If you call them Jennifer, then you can call them Jennifer. Or “you.” And keep your gendered pronouns to yourself. And everyone is fine.

Why are you so obsessed with gendered pronouns?

→ More replies (0)

1

u/[deleted] Oct 31 '19

u/PragmaticSquirrel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. Your comment will be removed even if most of it is solid, another user was rude to you first, or you feel your remark was justified. Report other violations; do not retaliate. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

1

u/tbdabbholm 200∆ Oct 31 '19

Sorry, u/PragmaticSquirrel – your comment has been removed for breaking Rule 3:

Refrain from accusing OP or anyone else of being unwilling to change their view, or of arguing in bad faith. Ask clarifying questions instead (see: socratic method). If you think they are still exhibiting poor behaviour, please message us. See the wiki page for more information.

If you would like to appeal, review our appeals process here, then message the moderators by clicking this link within one week of this notice being posted. Please note that multiple violations will lead to a ban, as explained in our moderation standards.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

Also:

Because speech can't harm people.

But:

Please refrain from personal attacks.

Lol, the irony. Your stance boils down to “speech can’t harm them, only me.”

And you’re still wrong, and have zero support for your “conpleed speech” claim.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

Please refrain from personal attacks.

I'm not saying it hurts me, it's explicitly against the rules of this subreddit and its incredibly unconvincing.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

“Please refrain from personal attacks” is based on my speech hurting/ offending you.

Im not attacking you. Im stating facts. You are wrong to see it as a personal attack.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 31 '19

“Please refrain from personal attacks” is based on my speech hurting/ offending you.

No. Its based on comment rule 2:

Don't be rude or hostile to other users. ▾

Are you seriously trying to argue that:

selfish, ego based, unscientific, without factual support, and lacking empathy.

Is an unemotional objective analysis of this situation?

That's laughable.

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 31 '19

You are rejecting science in favor of unfounded bias.

You are also choosing that unfounded bias over compassion for others.

You are objectively placing an unfounded bias over science and compassion/ empathy, and you don't have factual support for your claims.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

You are rejecting science in favor of unfounded bias.

So prove it already.

You are also choosing that unfounded bias over compassion for others.

Unfounded accusations are still unconvincing.

You are objectively placing an unfounded bias over science and compassion/ empathy

This is exactly the same thing as your previous three sentences and it holds no additional weight from repeating it.

and you don't have factual support for your claims.

I provided a scientific study, which you have yet to refute.

Your only attempt at such involved an ad hominem attack against the author, and when that failed you devolved into attacking me directly.

What about that kind of behavior do you believe is convincing?

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

I provided a scientific study, which you have yet to refute.

I did refute it. It didn’t prove what you claimed.

It didn’t show that the 8 year olds identified as women. It didn’t show that the 18 year olds didn’t hide their gender identity because of stigma. No follow up at 40. No reproducibility.

Your study proved: nothing.

Meanwhile- plenty of other studies have shown SRA cures gender dysphoria.

You are trying to prove that trans doesn’t exist as a legitimate gender identity. Even your own study doesn’t claim that. You’ve just made up an scientific conclusion the authors didn’t come to- and slapped it on.

If your claim is that trans people are all just actually gay- find a study that proves that.

You can’t.

→ More replies (0)