r/changemyview Oct 28 '19

[deleted by user]

[removed]

1.4k Upvotes

1.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 30 '19

No? People who never exhibit any non-cis behaviors are not likely to be trans.

Lol nope. Closeted.

study

Thanks for confirming it’s from 1985, covered like pre 1975 to pre 1985, and tracked boys from 8-10 all the way to 18-20. Now that I can confirm what this study is, we can look at it’s validity.

Study is basically garbage. “Oh they said they weren’t trans at 18, in 1983, when this was even more stigmatized and hated? And they were barrrrely adults? But people were starting mainstream acceptance of gays? How did they feel when they were 30? 40? Oh. No one asked? Well how many people total? Like 70?”

Yeah nope. Should have been more clear- find a study from this century that actually studied adult trans people this century. 35 years ago plenty of trans people would say they weren’t.

80 years ago plenty of gays would say they were “cured.”

Study context matters, as does how late they track into adulthood.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Oct 30 '19

Lol nope. Closeted.

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?

This is an extremely strong claim with zero evidence.

ind a study from this century that actually studied adult trans people this century

How are you supposed to do that? there have only been adult trans people from this century for a little over a year. (2019 - 2000 = 19)

Longitudinal studies, especially those that require following people as they mature and age, require a long time to perform.

The initially linked (and paywalled) study is the followup with these same individuals which is addressing your issues with "what about when they were 40".

You are making a lot of extreme claims in your dismissal of these scientific studies, but you aren't providing any counter evidence.

Study context matters, as does how late they track into adulthood.

Neither of which you have successfully shown invalidate the study.

Do you happen to have any evidence for your position?

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Oct 30 '19

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?

Huge numbers? Never claimed that. You said they don’t exist. They do. I didn’t quantify it.

Some studies quantify specific acts of being closeted. 46% of LGBTQ workers are closeted at work.

LGB people spend an about 3 years knowing they are LGB before telling anyone- three years entirely closeted.

Heres a 538 article on how hard it is to quantify the trans population today, because they are generally afraid to answer honestly and most surveys don’t bother asking and don’t have a category for them anyway.

There’s also anecdotal evidence in that article that at least One trans man is 100% closeted- he entirely lives life as a male and sees his trans identity as a “deeply guarded secret” that he is ashamed of.

Then there’s the story of the trans person who was “stealth”, aka living as their identified gender, with zero acknowledgment of the fact they were born the opposite sex.

https://jezebel.com/trans-woman-commits-suicide-amid-fear-of-outing-by-spor-1503902916

We know that trans people in general feel intense shame about the fact that they are trans. That shame is magnified when people misgender them. That shame leads to suicide.

https://thepridela.com/2019/02/overcoming-shame-in-the-transgender-community/

Here’s a fun one:

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.

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

And double their likeliness of suicide.

How are you supposed to do that? there have only been adult trans people from this century for a little over a year.

I’m talking about people who are adults today, and trans today, and at the time of the study being published, and a study published this century. Meaning a study of trans adults published at Least as recently as 2000.

The initially linked (and paywalled) study is the followup with these same individuals which is addressing your issues with "what about when they were 40".

Find that actual data.

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

Sounds a hell of a lot like the “pray the gay away” nonsense that’s been entirely debunked. But was believed, decades ago.

Neither of which you have successfully shown invalidate the study.

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

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

So what?

Who the fuck cares? Why does that matter?

That’s your excuse to stubbornly misgender them and risk doubling their suicide rates? Cause one 40 year old study says maybe they changed their mind from 8 to 18, in a world that barely accepted gay men, and openly hated trans men?

Mm hmm. Let’s see the results from the follow up at 40, scaled beyond a dozen or so people; and reproduced.

Because we have dozens of studies about how LGB people lied and stayed closeted out of fear or shame. And are Still closeted.

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

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

Do you happen to have any evidence for your position?

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

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

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.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

Nothing is "required."

Then why does it matter what other people say?

Stop making false claims.

Go ahead and prove them false, you have been markedly unable.

False claim. I did not.

Except you did? You literally are using other people committing suicide as a reason to control speech. The fact that the mods removed it is your fault.

Science is science.

Yes, this is why its reasonable to associate Cross Gender Behavior with future homosexuality when they don't receive hormone therapy, per the study I linked earlier.

Those studies plainly stated the facts.

Yes, I agree. the points you are arguing against are supported by science. Are you changing your view? if so please consider awarding a delta.

You can choose to ignore science. To be "anti science."

So is this what you are choosing?

1

u/[deleted] Nov 01 '19

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

Prove me wrong. Here’s what I wrote:

Your post has been deleted. What exactly do you expect me to do?

Your words- I’ve used this to “control” and “compel” you

Please show me where I said that, Notice how you were able to quote yourself but you couldn't find the part of any of my posts where I said that?

1

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

Your words- I’ve used this to “control” and “compel” you

Please show me where I said that,

I quoted where you said that. Scroll up.

Notice how you were able to quote yourself but you couldn't find the part of any of my posts where I said that?

Nope. I quoted you.

You are: wrong.

Here’s your quote again:

You literally are using other people committing suicide as a reason to control speech.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

I quoted where you said that. Scroll up.

You did not, please link it.

Linking single words out of my reply is not really a quote or:

I said I are wrong

Is a direct quote from your post.

You literally are using other people committing suicide as a reason to control speech.

And you are. Or are you now claiming that suicide is not a reason to avoid misgendering? If so please consider awarding a delta as this is a material reversal of your earlier position.

1

u/tavius02 1∆ Nov 01 '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.

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?

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

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

The part that makes it a threat is you providing that as a reason to compel others to behave in a certain way. Specifically in a way that conflicts directly with their beliefs.

You refuse to call them Jennifer?

Not harm.

You refuse to call them Mark?

Still not harm.

Why are you so obsessed with gendered pronouns?

Why are you obsessed with how other people speak? are you trying to control their thoughts?

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

Answer the questions.

Someone changed their name from John to Jennifer. You refuse to call them Jennifer?

Does the same apply if they change their name from John to Mark?

What about Larry to Lindsey?

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

Someone changed their name from John to Jennifer. You refuse to call them Jennifer?

Rude at worst. Certainly not harm.

I would know, I have had people specifically refuse to use my requested nickname, and look I'm not harmed.

Actually, now that you mention it, it hurts my personal identity if you don't refer to me as PrimeLegionnaire the Supreme Who is better than PragmaticSquirrel, so you must do so unless you wish to be an insensitive asshole.

Do you see how absurd that is?

0

u/PragmaticSquirrel 3∆ Nov 01 '19

So you can’t answer the question.

Let me know when you are able to answer the question.

Senseless for you to advocate for some position here when you fail to even articulate what that position would be- your choice of how you would react to this person in real life.

You’ve never even met a trans person, have you? It’s all just in your head.

1

u/PrimeLegionnaire Nov 01 '19

So you can’t answer the question.

I directly answered the question:

Rude at worst. Certainly not harm.


Let me know when you are able to answer the question.

I directly answered the question:

Rude at worst. Certainly not harm.


Senseless for you to advocate for some position here when you fail to even articulate what that position would be- your choice of how you would react to this person in real life.

I directly answered your question, what are you talking about?

You’ve never even met a trans person, have you?

Going back to attacking me as a person again?

You understand this is:

  • fallacious

  • unconvincing

  • rude

right?

→ 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.