The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Calling All Ambulance-Chasing Lawyers ...
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Have Republicans succeeded in chopping down on malpractice lawsuits enough that these chop shops feel immune?

 
Hide 55 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. The transitioning of youth will end up being remembered like frontal lobotomies

    The Daily Mail reported this week that Britain’s Prince Andrew spent three days with a beautiful young (female) neurosurgeon at Jeffrey Epstein’s New Mexican bachelor pad in 2001.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7711087/Prince-Andrew-spent-three-days-Epsteins-ranch-beautiful-young-woman.html

    Although the evidence is staring us in the face, no one seems to be considering the possibility that she gave him a private frontal lobotomy.

    • Replies: @Clyde
    I think that aide from the girls and women, Prince Andrew learned a lot from Epstein on how to set up [email protected] which is clever and entrepreneurial. In his big interview he spoke of Epstein as opening new doors for him.
    , @Bardon Kaldian

    beautiful young (female) neurosurgeon
     
    Impossible.
    , @Dan Hayes
    Jonathan Mason:

    More likely that Prince Andrew had an in sitsu lobotomy at birth!
  2. People need to go to prison over this, including the lawyers representing James Younger’s mother. Every lawyer involved should be disbarred, every doctor should lose his or her medical license. Future lawsuits when and if sanity ever returns isn’t near enough of a deterrent.

    • Agree: Cortes, sayless
  3. I can see that some of the men going trans to women can have some sanity if all they get are hormone injections to grow their breasts and to feel more female. They can wear perfume and dress in women’s clothing. But once they get the big chop of their genitals they are certifiably nuts. I think most trans guys going female are fake artists and never get the big chop.

    Maybe these chop shops deal mostly in hormone injections as their clients try to work up the courage to get chopped. As far as I know they can reverse back by giving up these injections.

    • Replies: @ScarletNumber

    But once they get the big chop of their genitals they are certifiably nuts.
     
    Pardon the pun.
  4. @Jonathan Mason

    The transitioning of youth will end up being remembered like frontal lobotomies
     
    The Daily Mail reported this week that Britain's Prince Andrew spent three days with a beautiful young (female) neurosurgeon at Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexican bachelor pad in 2001.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7711087/Prince-Andrew-spent-three-days-Epsteins-ranch-beautiful-young-woman.html

    Although the evidence is staring us in the face, no one seems to be considering the possibility that she gave him a private frontal lobotomy.

    I think that aide from the girls and women, Prince Andrew learned a lot from Epstein on how to set up [email protected] which is clever and entrepreneurial. In his big interview he spoke of Epstein as opening new doors for him.

  5. @Jonathan Mason

    The transitioning of youth will end up being remembered like frontal lobotomies
     
    The Daily Mail reported this week that Britain's Prince Andrew spent three days with a beautiful young (female) neurosurgeon at Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexican bachelor pad in 2001.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7711087/Prince-Andrew-spent-three-days-Epsteins-ranch-beautiful-young-woman.html

    Although the evidence is staring us in the face, no one seems to be considering the possibility that she gave him a private frontal lobotomy.

    beautiful young (female) neurosurgeon

    Impossible.

    • Replies: @gcochran
    A friend knew one that was all that and a nympho to boot.
    , @gcochran
    A friend knew one that was all that and a nympho to boot.
  6. JackD – line one, two and three are for you. They is calling and they say it’s impotent.

  7. A better analogy than lobotomy might be the use by parents of “psychiatric hospitals” which were really shock shops, which performed electroshock on their “freaked out” bearded drug-using suburban hippie kids in the late sixties. “Just give me back my kid the way he used to be” parents would say. That’s what they got, a quiet well-behaved kid minus some of their right brain function. Shock shops did proliferate and did get sued. I don’t know how many-

    Was there a giant lawsuit wave launched over people who should not have been lobotomized in the 1950’s-1960’s? (You might ask “Who should have been?” Maybe intractable epilepsy and incurable violent psychosis. They had limited options.)

    • Replies: @Moshe
    I'd often heard that electroshock therapy was a miracle cure that leaves everything intact but whatever it is that the shockee wanted to get rid of.

    The only guy I know who actually had it done is someone I got to know decades after his shock therapy and only found out about his apparently depressed 20s followed by shock therapy after I had already known him.

    Before finding out about his past the only thing that I found noticeably odd about this well adjusted, well respected, nice professional family man was how incredibly gay he sounded. He's a public speaker who spoke, both in public and private, with a soft super gay tone and cadence.

    I've only ever come across a couple of other people who sounded so absolutely insanely gay.

    He doesn't have any sort of liwp but both in the way he looks and in how he sounds there is something unsettlingly pseudo-feminine there.

    He's a great guy, a highly respected guy and a great dad. If the only price he had to pay for not killling himself was...I dunno, estrogen production? then it was definitely worth it but until reading your comment I never gave any thought to whether his oddly faggy sound and look had anything to do with thr electroshock treatments he had years earlier. If anything, I'd assumed that he was born that way and that electroshock treatment helped him be okay with it.

    Now I'm curious.
  8. Anonymous[403] • Disclaimer says:

    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

    Trans people can’t win with you lot. If they wait until legal majority to transition, you viciously ridicule their often odd appearance. It is also much more expensive to transition after puberty.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    • Troll: Hibernian
    • Replies: @Art Deco
    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    Chuckles.
    , @Lot
    “ because some small portion will have regrets”

    More than 80% of boys who engage in gender non-conformity grow out of it completely.

    Most of them will grow up to be gays who are quite happy they were not castrated as children.

    Saw this with my own eyes. Kid in my elementary school played with Barbie dolls and wore red lipstick at age 8 to 10. The girls kind of accepted him as one of their own.

    By 7th grade he had grown out of it completely and even had a sense of humor about it.
    , @Lot
    Let me guess, you’re a masculine autogynephile whose primary sexual fantasy involves being a lesbian? I don’t see that providing you with any insight on the Texas boy.

    In any event, I will grant you there *might* be a very tiny number of males who in the long run would be best off with your puberty blockers and mutilation plan.

    However, for every one of them there will be far more boys who grow out of their pre-pubertal non-conformity, and I don’t see the militant trannies engaging in efforts to sort them out. Rather I see them making deranged attacks on the doctors who have studied and treated unhappy feminine boys for decades and arrived on “wait and see” as the best treatment.
    , @Kratoklastes
    Anyone who ever refers to a meta-analysis as if that's the same as 'scientific literature', shows that they are either naive or bullshitting, or both... but definitely not neither.

    Perhaps you've been under a rock since 2005, when John Ioannides wrote Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

    And you missed the memo about publication bias; post-hoc end-point selection; p-hacking; and the raft of other anti-scientific misbehaviour that taken together constitute the "Replication Crisis".

    Meta-analyses are based on a priori biased samples, given what is known about the above. Unpublished negative studies run to ~90%. Published studies report adverse-events at rates roughly haif that of unpublished (see Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review).

    Note that's a review article, basically doing ANOVA on key secondary outputs (kind of like doing a funnel plot). It's not a 'meta-analysis' that purports to validate a research conclusion by taking an average across studies.

    Maybe next find a meta-analysis of published research on Vioxx: the "this shit is awesome" publications outweighed the "this shit'll kill you" by ~10:1, and if some schlub dug no deeper they would be convinced.

    A couple of insights from people at the very top of the medical-research publication food chain:


    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” - Marcia Angell (2009) Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, New York Review of Books, Jan 15 2009
     
    or this ->

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” - Richard Horton (2015) What is medicine’s 5 sigma?, The Lancet, Vol 385 (April 11, 2015) p1380
     
    A lot of the problem with Pharma and medial-device research is outright financial corruption: that's as American as apple pie.

    Non-pharma Psych research (y compris this 'gender dysphoria' nonsense) is at the lower-rent end of town: the only financial corruption involves self-censorship[1] so as not to submit anything that risks ejection from the grant-money gravy train... knowing that reviewers represent a religious orthodoxy in the core of the discipline.

    Climate 'science' is exactly the same: a core of True Believers captured the publication apparatus - which is why they are very keen that their output is not subject to critical analysis (protip: it's worse than Psych research).

    There is a big 'turtles all the way down' problem in any field that is dominated by partisans (and outright zealots): they are all doctrinaire to begin with, so any meta-analysis starts from the premise that the doctrine is correct (that's anti-science). They are the same type of person who thinks you can validate the historicity of Moses by reviewing the work of Catholic bible scholars prior to Vatican II.

    And for the record: in my main field of study (Economics, particularly quantitative economics as applied to policy research), replication rates are in the ~70% range. And the non-replicable studies are overwhelmingly the ones that claim to validate some positive intervention that is clearly a current infatuation of the researchers.

    [1] Usually the self-censorship is not required, because past some point the field is known to have a 'correct line', and only those who hew to that line enter the discipline. Ask yourself: "Who wants to be a climate scientist when they grow up?" Answer: the Gretchen Thunburgers and Michael Manns of the world (well, the subset of Michael Manns who weren't producing "Miami Vice" in the 80s)

    , @AnotherDad

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.
     
    You are either trolling or evil.

    And for the record, you don't destroy people and uplift catering to some tiny (in this case mentally ill) minority over the normal healthy functioning of society.

    The analogy of this trans looniness to the minoritarians and "nation of immigrants" is on point. A fervent wish to destroy normal healthy society so some little whiny minority can feel more comfortable.
    , @ic1000
    Anonymous[403], you wrote, "Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment 'not being proven to work' is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria."

    You then linked Cornell University's "What We Know" website in support of your claim.

    I looked into the substance of this support.

    The web page's authors address this question: "What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being?"

    They answer: "We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 56 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 52 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm."
    - - - - -
    I dug into this by selecting the most recent of the first four "positive" articles thumbnailed at the bottom of the page. That was Male-to-female transitions: Implications for occupational performance, health, and life satisfaction (2016). The link is to an abstract; I pulled the paywalled paper itself.

    The occupational-therapist authors recruited 22 transgender individuals aged 23 to 54, then identified 22 non-transgender "matched controls" from the same city. They conducted 90-minute interviews with each, administering three self-report tests: the Occupational Performance History Interview, the Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire, and the Satisfaction With Life Scale.

    Figure 1 shows that the transgender group averaged scores around 60 on each of the three subcomponents of Occupational Performance History Interview (Identity, Competence, and Settings), while the cisgender group averaged about 73 on each. The results of the "Health" and "Life Satisfaction" surveys were not shown, although the Discussion implies that the transgender results were worse there, too.

    However, post hoc analysis of the "past" versus "present" questions of the Occupational interview tended to show that cisgender scores were at about 3.5 in the past and in the present, while transgender scores appear to have improved from about 2.5 to about 3.5 (Figure 2). The meaning of the change in scale from Figure 1 to Figure 2 was left as an exercise for the reader.

    That's most of the paper's finding, outside of a very cryptic Table 1 -- an ANOVA analysis showing P values of 0.001 for the past-to-present Occupational interview findings.

    The Background (Introduction), Discussion, Practice Implications, and Conclusions sections were comprised mostly of recitations of the obstacles, discrimination, and stressors that male-to-female transgender women face in life.
    - - - - -
    This is one of the strangest peer-reviewed papers that I have ever read. "Not even wrong" comes to mind, and at many levels.

    Circling back to the beginning: Anonymous[403] wrote, "[The linked "What We Know" webpage] is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria."

    Are the other 51 transgender-transition-cheering studies of similar caliber? I didn't check further.

    The author-advocates of "What We Know" are betting that links to proper-sounding abstracts support their case. The quality of the underlying research doesn't matter: who will bother to check?

    They're probably right.

    , @Marty T
    There is no such thing as a "transgender". These parents and doctors are committing child abuse.
  9. @Jonathan Mason

    The transitioning of youth will end up being remembered like frontal lobotomies
     
    The Daily Mail reported this week that Britain's Prince Andrew spent three days with a beautiful young (female) neurosurgeon at Jeffrey Epstein's New Mexican bachelor pad in 2001.

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7711087/Prince-Andrew-spent-three-days-Epsteins-ranch-beautiful-young-woman.html

    Although the evidence is staring us in the face, no one seems to be considering the possibility that she gave him a private frontal lobotomy.

    Jonathan Mason:

    More likely that Prince Andrew had an in sitsu lobotomy at birth!

  10. “ Have Republicans succeeded in chopping down on malpractice lawsuits enough that these chop shops feel immune?”

    Pretty much.

    California has a $250,000 cap on non-economic loss.

    So if the malpractice blinds a MLB player who loses millions of future income, you can get that plus additional medical costs.

    But pain and suffering for a lifetime… $250,000, no matter how bad. Intense physical pain for a lifetime, physical disfigurement, loss of fertility… $250,000.

    The mutilated plaintiff would claim the 250k in pain plus a lifetime of additional mental healthcare costs. That could add up, however the mental health costs would also be blamed on the pre-existing mental issues and the crazy parents who allowed the mutilation to happen. They’d also have to prove they wouldn’t have just done it at 18 anyway.

    And if the butchering quacks move out of the country like the British doctors that lost their license and moved to Spain, highly unlikely a lawyer will deal with that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Good tort lawyers venue shop heavily. Still, it sure seems that there is a lot of political postillionage as to which plaintiffs get kicked out and which get to go the distance.

    The failure of the gen-av industry to even show a good effort at judgmentproofing themselves and in fact to do exactly the opposite (Beech being bought by Raytheon, Cessna by Textron, going from deep pockets to saturaration-diving-level pockets) tells me they were not even playing to win. They're spoiled contractors, wanting to suck on the federal appendage of choice instead of selling to the civilian market at less than munificent margins.
  11. @Anonymous
    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

    Trans people can’t win with you lot. If they wait until legal majority to transition, you viciously ridicule their often odd appearance. It is also much more expensive to transition after puberty.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    Chuckles.

  12. @Anonymous
    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

    Trans people can’t win with you lot. If they wait until legal majority to transition, you viciously ridicule their often odd appearance. It is also much more expensive to transition after puberty.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    “ because some small portion will have regrets”

    More than 80% of boys who engage in gender non-conformity grow out of it completely.

    Most of them will grow up to be gays who are quite happy they were not castrated as children.

    Saw this with my own eyes. Kid in my elementary school played with Barbie dolls and wore red lipstick at age 8 to 10. The girls kind of accepted him as one of their own.

    By 7th grade he had grown out of it completely and even had a sense of humor about it.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes

    More than 80% of boys who engage in gender non-conformity grow out of it completely.
     
    The same is true (in broad strokes) about ADHD, anxiety, depression, anorexia, bulimia, and even drug addiction: the vast bulk of people afflicted by those things will get over it, and the key determinant appears to be "how fucked up is the victim's life in dimensions other than the symptom being examined?".

    However "HTFU"[1] is not a good business model for the psychosophasters: far better to get the victim into one of the main charlatanry-streams - endless talking[2] and/or a near-lifetime of different psychotropic cocktails that are guaranteed not to work.

    The core pharma research that validates psych drugs has diagnostic endpoints at ~6 weeks and still doesn't outperform placebo (once the literature is corrected for bias). Giving the victims meth, coke or molly for those six weeks would also give self-reported symptom-reduction, with no need to consider the longer term consequences of either.

    [1] Harden The Fuck Up. Velominati Rule #5.

    [2] Endless talking is a stupid pointless waste of time given that the interlocutor is peddling nonsense... but that makes it vastly superior to all forms of psychopharmacological intervention.
  13. Have Republicans succeeded in chopping down on malpractice lawsuits enough that these chop shops feel immune?

    These doctors shouldn’t have to be afraid of lawyers – that causes nothing but extra procedures and extra tests all over the place. They should be afraid of their consciences and/or have a natural sense of right and wrong.

    The lawyers would be in it for the cash only and would never give a damn about the pain and suffering. Most ambulance-chasing trial lawyers of pieces of crap and wed be better off without them. Look up the ratio of lawyers/engineers in the US vs. Japan. It explains a whole lot.

  14. That last comment of mine was perhaps too harsh not harsh enough. I’ve know lots of doctors and a few lawyers. The doctors were all good people – the lawyers had some real, what do they call it now .. ISSUES.

  15. @Anonymous
    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

    Trans people can’t win with you lot. If they wait until legal majority to transition, you viciously ridicule their often odd appearance. It is also much more expensive to transition after puberty.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    Let me guess, you’re a masculine autogynephile whose primary sexual fantasy involves being a lesbian? I don’t see that providing you with any insight on the Texas boy.

    In any event, I will grant you there *might* be a very tiny number of males who in the long run would be best off with your puberty blockers and mutilation plan.

    However, for every one of them there will be far more boys who grow out of their pre-pubertal non-conformity, and I don’t see the militant trannies engaging in efforts to sort them out. Rather I see them making deranged attacks on the doctors who have studied and treated unhappy feminine boys for decades and arrived on “wait and see” as the best treatment.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    Lol. Guess again. I am trans, but like what feminists call “toxic masculinity.” You know like soldiers and frat boys. I grew up with guys I find attractive calling me a “fag.”

    By encouraging transition at puberty, I’m trying to help trans women maximize their physical attractiveness, which will maximizes the ability of finding an open-minded guy. I’ve never seen a heterosexual guy with trans woman who didn’t pass.

    This may futile to ask, but try using basic logic. Autogynephilia is a paraphilia. Paraphilias don’t develop until during or after puberty. So kids who identify as trans before or at puberty logically aren’t autogynephiles.
  16. I used to be a trial lawyer. Putting these loons in front of a Cook County jury would be shooting fish in a barrel (if you get a decent judge). You would be able to bounce jurors for cause that are the Evanston types who believe transwomen are women and have closed their minds. That would leave you the white proles, Mexicans and blacks. They will crucify these docs and counselors and school councilors and….lots of people with lots of insurance.

    The biggest verdicts against recovered memory satanic abuse came out of a few psychologists loons at Rush Hospital. There were $20 million verdicts twenty years ago. This is the same.

    Also, is there any beautiful young neurosurgeons in the US? Start college at 18 then 4 year undergrad, 4 year med school, 1 year residency, 2 year neurology (or surgery I forget) and then 2 years neurosurgery … Before fellowships. Neurosurgeons start at 30 or 31 I think. I get there are lots of fancy high end hookers put there. And a surgical nurse could fake it.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    30's pretty young. 25's basically a kid (if anyone had told me that when I was 25, I would have been outraged...).

    Initially I read 'neurosurgeon' as neuroscientist, which is now often a buzzword used by people who know that using the term has more 'heft' than 'research psychosophaster' (as opposed to 'clinical psychosophaster'.

    There will be oodles of young female neuroscientists: they'll be the Smart Fraction of Psych majors (i.e., those smart enough to re-brand, realising that the entire field has fallen into well-deserved disrepute).
    , @Alden
    That’s what I was thinking. Were she American, the beautiful surgeon would be at least 30; 26 27 if British or Irish. Epstein’s girls didn’t last much longer than 21 even if they were very short and slim.

    And I doubt Prince Andrew would know a surgeon from a nurse’s aid or the techs who clean surgery rooms.
    , @Jack Henson
    "If you get a decent judge". And if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle.


    The reality is like every single other leftist project out there the judiciary is going to discover judicial gloss that says the tranny industry can't be sued outside of a narrow window and that's that.

    The Sacklers were literally caught red handed shifting money around to avoid having to give it up in bankruptcy or due to punitive charges and the response was "whattaya whattaya?". Kate Steinle's family can't sue SF for its sanctuary policies but judges have decided Sandy Hook types can sue Remington because *Talmudic Lawgic*.

    You think there won't be another "public figure" bit of interpretive reading when federal judges had to ride to the rescue to save northern papers from being sued by southern sheriffs during the civil rights jihad? C'mon man.

  17. @Anonymous
    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

    Trans people can’t win with you lot. If they wait until legal majority to transition, you viciously ridicule their often odd appearance. It is also much more expensive to transition after puberty.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    Anyone who ever refers to a meta-analysis as if that’s the same as ‘scientific literature’, shows that they are either naive or bullshitting, or both… but definitely not neither.

    Perhaps you’ve been under a rock since 2005, when John Ioannides wrote Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

    And you missed the memo about publication bias; post-hoc end-point selection; p-hacking; and the raft of other anti-scientific misbehaviour that taken together constitute the “Replication Crisis“.

    Meta-analyses are based on a priori biased samples, given what is known about the above. Unpublished negative studies run to ~90%. Published studies report adverse-events at rates roughly haif that of unpublished (see Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review).

    Note that’s a review article, basically doing ANOVA on key secondary outputs (kind of like doing a funnel plot). It’s not a ‘meta-analysis’ that purports to validate a research conclusion by taking an average across studies.

    Maybe next find a meta-analysis of published research on Vioxx: the “this shit is awesome” publications outweighed the “this shit’ll kill you” by ~10:1, and if some schlub dug no deeper they would be convinced.

    A couple of insights from people at the very top of the medical-research publication food chain:

    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” – Marcia Angell (2009) Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, New York Review of Books, Jan 15 2009

    or this ->

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” – Richard Horton (2015) What is medicine’s 5 sigma?, The Lancet, Vol 385 (April 11, 2015) p1380

    A lot of the problem with Pharma and medial-device research is outright financial corruption: that’s as American as apple pie.

    Non-pharma Psych research (y compris this ‘gender dysphoria’ nonsense) is at the lower-rent end of town: the only financial corruption involves self-censorship[1] so as not to submit anything that risks ejection from the grant-money gravy train… knowing that reviewers represent a religious orthodoxy in the core of the discipline.

    Climate ‘science’ is exactly the same: a core of True Believers captured the publication apparatus – which is why they are very keen that their output is not subject to critical analysis (protip: it’s worse than Psych research).

    There is a big ‘turtles all the way down’ problem in any field that is dominated by partisans (and outright zealots): they are all doctrinaire to begin with, so any meta-analysis starts from the premise that the doctrine is correct (that’s anti-science). They are the same type of person who thinks you can validate the historicity of Moses by reviewing the work of Catholic bible scholars prior to Vatican II.

    And for the record: in my main field of study (Economics, particularly quantitative economics as applied to policy research), replication rates are in the ~70% range. And the non-replicable studies are overwhelmingly the ones that claim to validate some positive intervention that is clearly a current infatuation of the researchers.

    [1] Usually the self-censorship is not required, because past some point the field is known to have a ‘correct line’, and only those who hew to that line enter the discipline. Ask yourself: “Who wants to be a climate scientist when they grow up?” Answer: the Gretchen Thunburgers and Michael Manns of the world (well, the subset of Michael Manns who weren’t producing “Miami Vice” in the 80s)

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    You deride meta studies, but then proceed to only use meta analysis to wave away the entire literature.

    The replication crisis is for stuff like implicit bias or stereotype threat that led to sweeping policy changes off of one study, which then fails to replicate.

    Fifty-six studies, overwhelming supporting medical transition. is not failure to replicate.

    Just say you find trans people icky and no research finding could ever change that opinion. It’s a lot shorter.
  18. @Hodag
    I used to be a trial lawyer. Putting these loons in front of a Cook County jury would be shooting fish in a barrel (if you get a decent judge). You would be able to bounce jurors for cause that are the Evanston types who believe transwomen are women and have closed their minds. That would leave you the white proles, Mexicans and blacks. They will crucify these docs and counselors and school councilors and....lots of people with lots of insurance.

    The biggest verdicts against recovered memory satanic abuse came out of a few psychologists loons at Rush Hospital. There were $20 million verdicts twenty years ago. This is the same.

    Also, is there any beautiful young neurosurgeons in the US? Start college at 18 then 4 year undergrad, 4 year med school, 1 year residency, 2 year neurology (or surgery I forget) and then 2 years neurosurgery ... Before fellowships. Neurosurgeons start at 30 or 31 I think. I get there are lots of fancy high end hookers put there. And a surgical nurse could fake it.

    30’s pretty young. 25’s basically a kid (if anyone had told me that when I was 25, I would have been outraged…).

    Initially I read ‘neurosurgeon’ as neuroscientist, which is now often a buzzword used by people who know that using the term has more ‘heft’ than ‘research psychosophaster‘ (as opposed to ‘clinical psychosophaster’.

    There will be oodles of young female neuroscientists: they’ll be the Smart Fraction of Psych majors (i.e., those smart enough to re-brand, realising that the entire field has fallen into well-deserved disrepute).

    • Replies: @Cortes
    25 was the age of formal adulthood for Roman citizens (military service was much earlier), I recall hearing during a lecture many moons ago. On attaining 25, your flash young guy could own and drive a chariot unsupervised. So fewer boy racers then, which if true, is remarkable given the shorter life spans.
  19. @Hodag
    I used to be a trial lawyer. Putting these loons in front of a Cook County jury would be shooting fish in a barrel (if you get a decent judge). You would be able to bounce jurors for cause that are the Evanston types who believe transwomen are women and have closed their minds. That would leave you the white proles, Mexicans and blacks. They will crucify these docs and counselors and school councilors and....lots of people with lots of insurance.

    The biggest verdicts against recovered memory satanic abuse came out of a few psychologists loons at Rush Hospital. There were $20 million verdicts twenty years ago. This is the same.

    Also, is there any beautiful young neurosurgeons in the US? Start college at 18 then 4 year undergrad, 4 year med school, 1 year residency, 2 year neurology (or surgery I forget) and then 2 years neurosurgery ... Before fellowships. Neurosurgeons start at 30 or 31 I think. I get there are lots of fancy high end hookers put there. And a surgical nurse could fake it.

    That’s what I was thinking. Were she American, the beautiful surgeon would be at least 30; 26 27 if British or Irish. Epstein’s girls didn’t last much longer than 21 even if they were very short and slim.

    And I doubt Prince Andrew would know a surgeon from a nurse’s aid or the techs who clean surgery rooms.

  20. @Lot
    “ because some small portion will have regrets”

    More than 80% of boys who engage in gender non-conformity grow out of it completely.

    Most of them will grow up to be gays who are quite happy they were not castrated as children.

    Saw this with my own eyes. Kid in my elementary school played with Barbie dolls and wore red lipstick at age 8 to 10. The girls kind of accepted him as one of their own.

    By 7th grade he had grown out of it completely and even had a sense of humor about it.

    More than 80% of boys who engage in gender non-conformity grow out of it completely.

    The same is true (in broad strokes) about ADHD, anxiety, depression, anorexia, bulimia, and even drug addiction: the vast bulk of people afflicted by those things will get over it, and the key determinant appears to be “how fucked up is the victim’s life in dimensions other than the symptom being examined?”.

    However “HTFU“[1] is not a good business model for the psychosophasters: far better to get the victim into one of the main charlatanry-streams – endless talking[2] and/or a near-lifetime of different psychotropic cocktails that are guaranteed not to work.

    The core pharma research that validates psych drugs has diagnostic endpoints at ~6 weeks and still doesn’t outperform placebo (once the literature is corrected for bias). Giving the victims meth, coke or molly for those six weeks would also give self-reported symptom-reduction, with no need to consider the longer term consequences of either.

    [1] Harden The Fuck Up. Velominati Rule #5.

    [2] Endless talking is a stupid pointless waste of time given that the interlocutor is peddling nonsense… but that makes it vastly superior to all forms of psychopharmacological intervention.

    • Replies: @Alden
    2 reasons talk therapy is dead.

    1 Insurance companies no longer pay for it. Insurance companies only pay for treatments that work. Talk therapy doesn’t work.

    2 Support groups; it began with AA then Narcotics Anonymous, Al Anon for family members of alcoholics Weight loss groups Clutters Anonymous on and on and on for every emotional practical sexual career family problem.

    So instead of spending a fortune on a successor to Dr Sigmund Fraud people go to a church meeting room and talk about their problems and practical successful solutions with fellow sufferers and feel much better than after years of talk therapy.

    For much of the 20th century psychiatrists filled the criminal courts with their bogus testimony. Then at one of the big judicial conferences the judges took a good look at the evidence and decided not to admit psychiatric testimony as expert testimony. Psychiatric testimony was down graded to non expert or useless. Best thing the judges have ever done since 1790.

    Now the last stronghold of court appointed psychiatrists and counselors is in Family Court.

  21. @Clyde
    I can see that some of the men going trans to women can have some sanity if all they get are hormone injections to grow their breasts and to feel more female. They can wear perfume and dress in women's clothing. But once they get the big chop of their genitals they are certifiably nuts. I think most trans guys going female are fake artists and never get the big chop.

    Maybe these chop shops deal mostly in hormone injections as their clients try to work up the courage to get chopped. As far as I know they can reverse back by giving up these injections.

    But once they get the big chop of their genitals they are certifiably nuts.

    Pardon the pun.

  22. @Kratoklastes
    30's pretty young. 25's basically a kid (if anyone had told me that when I was 25, I would have been outraged...).

    Initially I read 'neurosurgeon' as neuroscientist, which is now often a buzzword used by people who know that using the term has more 'heft' than 'research psychosophaster' (as opposed to 'clinical psychosophaster'.

    There will be oodles of young female neuroscientists: they'll be the Smart Fraction of Psych majors (i.e., those smart enough to re-brand, realising that the entire field has fallen into well-deserved disrepute).

    25 was the age of formal adulthood for Roman citizens (military service was much earlier), I recall hearing during a lecture many moons ago. On attaining 25, your flash young guy could own and drive a chariot unsupervised. So fewer boy racers then, which if true, is remarkable given the shorter life spans.

  23. @Anonymous
    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

    Trans people can’t win with you lot. If they wait until legal majority to transition, you viciously ridicule their often odd appearance. It is also much more expensive to transition after puberty.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    You are either trolling or evil.

    And for the record, you don’t destroy people and uplift catering to some tiny (in this case mentally ill) minority over the normal healthy functioning of society.

    The analogy of this trans looniness to the minoritarians and “nation of immigrants” is on point. A fervent wish to destroy normal healthy society so some little whiny minority can feel more comfortable.

  24. Hodag, I can vouch for what you are saying about Cook County, having spent much of my life there. If these manglers ever get before a jury, they will be atomized by the everyday blacks and Mexicans that I worked with. As for the “Evanston types”, I have tried to reason with them forever by using the comparison that Thomas Szasz used in the NYT Book Review. He said that cutting off your genitals to prove you are the opposite sex is tantamount to amputating your right hand to prove you are left-handed. But I have to admit, evoking lobotomies here may finally slap a few minds back to functional.
    As to anonymous(403) and “trans people can’t win with you lot”, a moment’s reflection should show you that it is you manglers who are uncomfortable with girlish boys and boyish girls. That’s why you’re brandishing knives and needles and playing sexually omniscient God.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    As for the “Evanston types”, I have tried to reason with them forever by using the comparison that Thomas Szasz used in the NYT Book Review. He said that cutting off your genitals to prove you are the opposite sex is tantamount to amputating your right hand to prove you are left-handed.
     
    Actually, upon giving it a few moments thought, I have to conclude that the analogy is flawed. If one severs his right hand, odds are that he will perforce come to rely upon his left hand to a degree sufficient that he could then, at least in a sense, be considered "left-handed". But a male who severs his genitalia just becomes a mutilated/castrated male.

    As to anonymous(403) and “trans people can’t win with you lot”, a moment’s reflection should show you that it is you manglers who are uncomfortable with girlish boys and boyish girls. That’s why you’re brandishing knives and needles and playing sexually omniscient God.
     
    Apropos:
    4thWaveNow
    A community of parents & others questioning the medicalization of gender-atypical youth
    I learned of this site thanks to a comment that someone posted in a thread here a few years back. Note that the people who post at 4th Wave Now are far from the rabid, reactionary, unrepentent homophobic, cis-hetero-sexist-centric type that I am.
  25. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    “ Have Republicans succeeded in chopping down on malpractice lawsuits enough that these chop shops feel immune?”

    Pretty much.

    California has a $250,000 cap on non-economic loss.

    So if the malpractice blinds a MLB player who loses millions of future income, you can get that plus additional medical costs.

    But pain and suffering for a lifetime... $250,000, no matter how bad. Intense physical pain for a lifetime, physical disfigurement, loss of fertility... $250,000.

    The mutilated plaintiff would claim the 250k in pain plus a lifetime of additional mental healthcare costs. That could add up, however the mental health costs would also be blamed on the pre-existing mental issues and the crazy parents who allowed the mutilation to happen. They’d also have to prove they wouldn’t have just done it at 18 anyway.

    And if the butchering quacks move out of the country like the British doctors that lost their license and moved to Spain, highly unlikely a lawyer will deal with that.

    Good tort lawyers venue shop heavily. Still, it sure seems that there is a lot of political postillionage as to which plaintiffs get kicked out and which get to go the distance.

    The failure of the gen-av industry to even show a good effort at judgmentproofing themselves and in fact to do exactly the opposite (Beech being bought by Raytheon, Cessna by Textron, going from deep pockets to saturaration-diving-level pockets) tells me they were not even playing to win. They’re spoiled contractors, wanting to suck on the federal appendage of choice instead of selling to the civilian market at less than munificent margins.

    • Replies: @The Wild Geese Howard

    They’re spoiled contractors, wanting to suck on the federal appendage of choice instead of selling to the civilian market at less than munificent margins.
     
    You should see what Transdigm has done with sole-source component and subsystem vendors in the aerospace industry.

    Buy the original vendor out, gut the workforce, and raise prices 4000% to keep pumping up the stock price and soak the taxpayers.

    Nice work if you can get it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransDigm_Group#Controversies

    https://www.pogo.org/report/2019/05/in-for-a-transdigm-out-for-billions/

    Joke refund to DoD:

    https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/transdigm-to-refund-161-million-to-dod-as-a-result-of-committee-investigation

  26. Q: When a female transitions to male, what is the operation called?

    A: An addadictomy.

  27. Can’t wait for the punk song “Teenage Transgender Surgery”.

  28. Doctors are insured enough that no law suit can get to their own money. It’s insurance companies that may want to think about this. Of course, there are very few employees willing to go through hassle in the present to save the company money ten years from now.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
    When multiple plaintiffs are involved occasionally one gets judgments over and above the insured limits. Most wealthy physicians have at least part of their portfolio judgmentproofed fairly well, so that one actually being wiped out is rare.

    But after a couple of suits, the premiums get insane and the doctor alters his practice , retires early, or does something else.

    I have heard several attorneys both on the plaintiff's side and defense say the same exact thing-80% of people who sue their doctors are pursuing cases with little or no merit, but 80% of people who have legitimate reason to sue do not. I've known several people who felt that their spouse or parent died from medical malpractice but who refused to sue or even talk to a lawyer about the case.
  29. @Anonymous
    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

    Trans people can’t win with you lot. If they wait until legal majority to transition, you viciously ridicule their often odd appearance. It is also much more expensive to transition after puberty.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    Anonymous[403], you wrote, “Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment ‘not being proven to work’ is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria.”

    You then linked Cornell University’s “What We Know” website in support of your claim.

    I looked into the substance of this support.

    [MORE]

    The web page’s authors address this question: “What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being?”

    They answer: “We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 56 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 52 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm.”
    – – – – –
    I dug into this by selecting the most recent of the first four “positive” articles thumbnailed at the bottom of the page. That was Male-to-female transitions: Implications for occupational performance, health, and life satisfaction (2016). The link is to an abstract; I pulled the paywalled paper itself.

    The occupational-therapist authors recruited 22 transgender individuals aged 23 to 54, then identified 22 non-transgender “matched controls” from the same city. They conducted 90-minute interviews with each, administering three self-report tests: the Occupational Performance History Interview, the Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire, and the Satisfaction With Life Scale.

    Figure 1 shows that the transgender group averaged scores around 60 on each of the three subcomponents of Occupational Performance History Interview (Identity, Competence, and Settings), while the cisgender group averaged about 73 on each. The results of the “Health” and “Life Satisfaction” surveys were not shown, although the Discussion implies that the transgender results were worse there, too.

    However, post hoc analysis of the “past” versus “present” questions of the Occupational interview tended to show that cisgender scores were at about 3.5 in the past and in the present, while transgender scores appear to have improved from about 2.5 to about 3.5 (Figure 2). The meaning of the change in scale from Figure 1 to Figure 2 was left as an exercise for the reader.

    That’s most of the paper’s finding, outside of a very cryptic Table 1 — an ANOVA analysis showing P values of 0.001 for the past-to-present Occupational interview findings.

    The Background (Introduction), Discussion, Practice Implications, and Conclusions sections were comprised mostly of recitations of the obstacles, discrimination, and stressors that male-to-female transgender women face in life.
    – – – – –
    This is one of the strangest peer-reviewed papers that I have ever read. “Not even wrong” comes to mind, and at many levels.

    Circling back to the beginning: Anonymous[403] wrote, “[The linked “What We Know” webpage] is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria.”

    Are the other 51 transgender-transition-cheering studies of similar caliber? I didn’t check further.

    The author-advocates of “What We Know” are betting that links to proper-sounding abstracts support their case. The quality of the underlying research doesn’t matter: who will bother to check?

    They’re probably right.

    • Replies: @bomag
    Thanks.
  30. @Bardon Kaldian

    beautiful young (female) neurosurgeon
     
    Impossible.

    A friend knew one that was all that and a nympho to boot.

    • Replies: @Space Ghost
    Hey! That's my wife you're talking about!
  31. @Bardon Kaldian

    beautiful young (female) neurosurgeon
     
    Impossible.

    A friend knew one that was all that and a nympho to boot.

  32. @Anonymous
    Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment “not being proven to work” is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria:

    https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/

    Trans people can’t win with you lot. If they wait until legal majority to transition, you viciously ridicule their often odd appearance. It is also much more expensive to transition after puberty.

    Yet when trans people ask for treatment at puberty, which will allow them to blend into their desired sex, you work to prevent such treatment because some small portion will have regrets. The right of vast majority to receive treatment is paramount.

    There is no such thing as a “transgender”. These parents and doctors are committing child abuse.

    • Replies: @Jonathan Mason

    There is no such thing as a “transgender”.
     
    Of course there is not. It is all a scam. When I was a child no one had ever heard of such a thing, but it is what Richard Dawkins calls a meme, a kind of mutated non-genetic idea that has rapidly reproduced itself in the brains of human beings in the more economically developed nations as well as in sex tourism destinations like Thailand (no I have never been there).

    What does the word meme literally mean?

    English Language Learners Definition of meme : an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from one person to another in a culture

    [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]

    Aspberger Syndrome or autism is largely another scam by which parents of mentally retarded children can claim that they are special, and Attention Deficit Disorder is another scam by which parents of stupid children can claim that they are really very intelligent, only they act stupid.

    ** This is not true in every case, but more often than you would think.

  33. Anonymous[427] • Disclaimer says:
    @Rrrrrroger
    Doctors are insured enough that no law suit can get to their own money. It’s insurance companies that may want to think about this. Of course, there are very few employees willing to go through hassle in the present to save the company money ten years from now.

    When multiple plaintiffs are involved occasionally one gets judgments over and above the insured limits. Most wealthy physicians have at least part of their portfolio judgmentproofed fairly well, so that one actually being wiped out is rare.

    But after a couple of suits, the premiums get insane and the doctor alters his practice , retires early, or does something else.

    I have heard several attorneys both on the plaintiff’s side and defense say the same exact thing-80% of people who sue their doctors are pursuing cases with little or no merit, but 80% of people who have legitimate reason to sue do not. I’ve known several people who felt that their spouse or parent died from medical malpractice but who refused to sue or even talk to a lawyer about the case.

  34. Anonymous[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @Kratoklastes
    Anyone who ever refers to a meta-analysis as if that's the same as 'scientific literature', shows that they are either naive or bullshitting, or both... but definitely not neither.

    Perhaps you've been under a rock since 2005, when John Ioannides wrote Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.

    And you missed the memo about publication bias; post-hoc end-point selection; p-hacking; and the raft of other anti-scientific misbehaviour that taken together constitute the "Replication Crisis".

    Meta-analyses are based on a priori biased samples, given what is known about the above. Unpublished negative studies run to ~90%. Published studies report adverse-events at rates roughly haif that of unpublished (see Reporting of Adverse Events in Published and Unpublished Studies of Health Care Interventions: A Systematic Review).

    Note that's a review article, basically doing ANOVA on key secondary outputs (kind of like doing a funnel plot). It's not a 'meta-analysis' that purports to validate a research conclusion by taking an average across studies.

    Maybe next find a meta-analysis of published research on Vioxx: the "this shit is awesome" publications outweighed the "this shit'll kill you" by ~10:1, and if some schlub dug no deeper they would be convinced.

    A couple of insights from people at the very top of the medical-research publication food chain:


    “It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as editor of The New England Journal of Medicine” - Marcia Angell (2009) Drug Companies & Doctors: A Story of Corruption, New York Review of Books, Jan 15 2009
     
    or this ->

    “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” - Richard Horton (2015) What is medicine’s 5 sigma?, The Lancet, Vol 385 (April 11, 2015) p1380
     
    A lot of the problem with Pharma and medial-device research is outright financial corruption: that's as American as apple pie.

    Non-pharma Psych research (y compris this 'gender dysphoria' nonsense) is at the lower-rent end of town: the only financial corruption involves self-censorship[1] so as not to submit anything that risks ejection from the grant-money gravy train... knowing that reviewers represent a religious orthodoxy in the core of the discipline.

    Climate 'science' is exactly the same: a core of True Believers captured the publication apparatus - which is why they are very keen that their output is not subject to critical analysis (protip: it's worse than Psych research).

    There is a big 'turtles all the way down' problem in any field that is dominated by partisans (and outright zealots): they are all doctrinaire to begin with, so any meta-analysis starts from the premise that the doctrine is correct (that's anti-science). They are the same type of person who thinks you can validate the historicity of Moses by reviewing the work of Catholic bible scholars prior to Vatican II.

    And for the record: in my main field of study (Economics, particularly quantitative economics as applied to policy research), replication rates are in the ~70% range. And the non-replicable studies are overwhelmingly the ones that claim to validate some positive intervention that is clearly a current infatuation of the researchers.

    [1] Usually the self-censorship is not required, because past some point the field is known to have a 'correct line', and only those who hew to that line enter the discipline. Ask yourself: "Who wants to be a climate scientist when they grow up?" Answer: the Gretchen Thunburgers and Michael Manns of the world (well, the subset of Michael Manns who weren't producing "Miami Vice" in the 80s)

    You deride meta studies, but then proceed to only use meta analysis to wave away the entire literature.

    The replication crisis is for stuff like implicit bias or stereotype threat that led to sweeping policy changes off of one study, which then fails to replicate.

    Fifty-six studies, overwhelming supporting medical transition. is not failure to replicate.

    Just say you find trans people icky and no research finding could ever change that opinion. It’s a lot shorter.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    I don't find 'trans' people 'icky' in the slightest: they are of no interest to me one way or another - I have seen genuinely beautiful "women" who used to be men, and to the extent that looking at pretty things is pleasant, they add to life's visuals.

    So long as nobody's deceiving anybody, I would not bat an eyelid if one of them was in my orbit - and I can say that definitively, since a very good mate had a live-in ex-male partner for over a year. 'She' was up-front about the whole thing from well before my mate started going out with 'her'.

    It didn't make him (the mate) gay; it also didn't make his partner an actual woman. (Leave aside the non-option of reproduction - implying that fertility is a requisite, which has the corollary that an infertile actual woman is less of a woman than a 'breeder', which is a reprehensible view).


    The thing that's 'icky': 'trans' nonsense is now a thing that serial underperformers[1] falsely adopt in order to get attention - another in a long line of such things (ADD/ADHD, autism and/or 'Asparagus' Syndrome; eating disorders; 'anxiety' disorders; Wicca; Kabbalah).

    Claiming to be 'trans' has the side effect of rendering any opposition to any utterance as 'transphobic'- which is why it's most popular with outcast teens at or near the median, and social-climbing parents.

    ("If you disagree you're a transphobe" is just a variation on the "Victim as Expert" theme... in the same way: anyone who objects to Palestinian children being shot to death by racist invaders is ipso facto an antisemite).



    [1] Yeah yeah, the Coen brothers are geniuses: such seichel it takes to make a movie. Smart? like a compuduh!.
    , @ic1000
    Anonymous[403], you wrote to Krastoklastes:

    > Fifty-six studies, overwhelming supporting medical transition. is not failure to replicate.

    In a comment above (currently #29), I took a detailed look at one of the 52 peer-reviewed studies that you claim "supports medical transition."

    * That study, Bar et al. (2016) (see my comment for links) can not "support" medical transition. Its data are limited to self-reports on occupational status, health status, and life-satisfaction status of 22 male-to-female transgenders who transitioned (or are in the process of transitioning) as adults. The study finds that the occupational status of the trans-women is worse than that of a "matched" cisgender women control group. (The paper also alludes to lower self-report scores for health and life-satisfaction, but fails to present these results.)

    * Bar et al. does not attempt to compare men who went ahead with male-to-female transitioning with the relevant control group: men facing a similar situation who chose not to transition.

    * In my opinion, this study is junk science (for details, see my comment, supra).

    * In my opinion, the Cornell University authors of the "What We Know" web page engaged in junk science by their characterization of this study. Junk meta-science or junk meta-analysis, if you prefer.

    As you explained to Lot, you believe that medical professionals should encourage a boy who declares that he feels like he's 'really a girl' to undergo male-to-female transition procedures at puberty. You have your reasons, and your personal experience. The "What We Know" authors have theirs, as do the Bar et. al authors.

    Other people differ. These are drastic and irreversible procedures with major known side effects, and other yet-to-be-appreciated long-term adverse consequences. Many, myself included, are appalled that pro-transition anecdote and opinion are being presented as an adequate basis for establishing a new and radical Standard of Care.

    It may be true that, for person X, a procedure worked "well" or was "likely better than the available alternatives." But that's a far cry from the medical establishment's emerging One-Size-Fits-All dogma. And it's hardly a reason to suppress dissenting voices.

    The blossoming of advocacy-fueled junk science brings a 2008 article to mind. Steve Richman cautioned cops (3-page PDF):

    Noble Cause Corruption is a mindset or sub-culture which fosters a belief that the ends justify the means. In other words, law enforcement is engaged in a mission to make our streets and communities safe, and if that requires suspending the constitution or violating laws ourselves in order to accomplish our mission, then for the greater good of society, so be it. The officers who adopt this philosophy lose their moral compass.
     
    Physicians, scientists, and advocates are not immune from taking shortcuts in the name of "the greater good of society."
    , @Kratoklastes

    You deride meta studies, but then proceed to only use meta analysis to wave away the entire literature.
     
    Nope... review articles that evaluate methodology and/or investigate unreported secondary data characteristics, are different from what is currently understood to be a 'meta-analysis' (even though they are kinda 'meta').

    For example, if someone reviews 100 articles on a topic and finds that the p-values are all too close to 0.05: that's a secondary characteristic that is good evidence of p-hacking (and/or weak actual statistical evidence). That's valid AF, and (despite the 'meta') I would not use the word 'meta-analysis' for it - because that term is now understood to be pejorative.

    By contrast: cobble together 56 articles that have completely different methodologies; construct a Y/N variable for "does/doesn't support my worldview"; do a weighted count of "Y" (with equal weights, weights by study size - who gives a shit); do literally zero investigation into the relative merits of the study methodologies. Rely on the fact that very few non-partisans give a shit, so there's little likelihood that anyone will bother to check sources.

    That is bad research practice, which is to be expected from proselytes, and is typical of the 'meta-analysis' as practiced in bullshit non-scientific disciplines. It is an attempt (as @ic1000 made clear) to give an undeserved scientific veneer to a religiously-held view.


    There's an interesting chap on YouTube ("WhatILearned") who has enough energy to read and review significant amounts of the literature on topics that interest him: the inescapable conclusion is that a very large amount of 'received wisdom' is based on terribly-flawed research. (See, for example, his video on nutrition-as-we-currently-understand-it) ->

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xRAw7yeDO-c

    Now... dietary and nutritional science has been weakly-hostage to partisan interests for the best part of a century, and it's finally being unpicked. It's getting closer to actual science, which is what happens once the partisans' work gets examined scientifically (dispassionately, methodically).

    Trans-advocacy of the '56 studies' type is pseudoscience, and is not even close to producing anything that deserves to be called 'scientific'.
  35. Anonymous[403] • Disclaimer says:
    @Lot
    Let me guess, you’re a masculine autogynephile whose primary sexual fantasy involves being a lesbian? I don’t see that providing you with any insight on the Texas boy.

    In any event, I will grant you there *might* be a very tiny number of males who in the long run would be best off with your puberty blockers and mutilation plan.

    However, for every one of them there will be far more boys who grow out of their pre-pubertal non-conformity, and I don’t see the militant trannies engaging in efforts to sort them out. Rather I see them making deranged attacks on the doctors who have studied and treated unhappy feminine boys for decades and arrived on “wait and see” as the best treatment.

    Lol. Guess again. I am trans, but like what feminists call “toxic masculinity.” You know like soldiers and frat boys. I grew up with guys I find attractive calling me a “fag.”

    By encouraging transition at puberty, I’m trying to help trans women maximize their physical attractiveness, which will maximizes the ability of finding an open-minded guy. I’ve never seen a heterosexual guy with trans woman who didn’t pass.

    This may futile to ask, but try using basic logic. Autogynephilia is a paraphilia. Paraphilias don’t develop until during or after puberty. So kids who identify as trans before or at puberty logically aren’t autogynephiles.

    • Replies: @TheMediumIsTheMassage
    "Kids who identify as trans". They're kids. They don't have sexual desires or any real conception of what life is going to be like once they do. They have no way of knowing if they are truly trans or not. They have no way of really understanding the implications of being sterilized. I used to like to wear skirts and play with Barbies as a 5 year old. I got over it by the time I was 8 or so and once I hit puberty I was attracted to men and grew up to be a run of the mill gay guy. The thought of someone putting me on puberty blockers and operating me is horrifying.

    People like you are psychotic and dangerous. Stop trying to destroy children's lives in order to normalize yourself. And no, it's not comparable to a children's book with a gay couple or seeing a gay couple on Glee. 'The Penguin with Two Daddies' isn't an irreversible, sterilizing medical procedure.

    I feel empathy for you, it must be very hard being trans, but "helping trans women maximize their beauty so they can find a straight male partner" is not an acceptable reason to wreck the lives of countless children, because unavoidably many of the kids put on those treatments will not identify as trans into adulthood like you have. Not everyone is meant to be beautiful and find the perfect partner. Life can be fulfilling in other ways.
  36. @gcochran
    A friend knew one that was all that and a nympho to boot.

    Hey! That’s my wife you’re talking about!

    • LOL: Bardon Kaldian
  37. @ic1000
    Anonymous[403], you wrote, "Fred Arnolfson’s claim about the treatment 'not being proven to work' is just ignorant. Here is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria."

    You then linked Cornell University's "What We Know" website in support of your claim.

    I looked into the substance of this support.

    The web page's authors address this question: "What does the scholarly research say about the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being?"

    They answer: "We conducted a systematic literature review of all peer-reviewed articles published in English between 1991 and June 2017 that assess the effect of gender transition on transgender well-being. We identified 56 studies that consist of primary research on this topic, of which 52 (93%) found that gender transition improves the overall well-being of transgender people, while 4 (7%) report mixed or null findings. We found no studies concluding that gender transition causes overall harm."
    - - - - -
    I dug into this by selecting the most recent of the first four "positive" articles thumbnailed at the bottom of the page. That was Male-to-female transitions: Implications for occupational performance, health, and life satisfaction (2016). The link is to an abstract; I pulled the paywalled paper itself.

    The occupational-therapist authors recruited 22 transgender individuals aged 23 to 54, then identified 22 non-transgender "matched controls" from the same city. They conducted 90-minute interviews with each, administering three self-report tests: the Occupational Performance History Interview, the Short Form Health Survey Questionnaire, and the Satisfaction With Life Scale.

    Figure 1 shows that the transgender group averaged scores around 60 on each of the three subcomponents of Occupational Performance History Interview (Identity, Competence, and Settings), while the cisgender group averaged about 73 on each. The results of the "Health" and "Life Satisfaction" surveys were not shown, although the Discussion implies that the transgender results were worse there, too.

    However, post hoc analysis of the "past" versus "present" questions of the Occupational interview tended to show that cisgender scores were at about 3.5 in the past and in the present, while transgender scores appear to have improved from about 2.5 to about 3.5 (Figure 2). The meaning of the change in scale from Figure 1 to Figure 2 was left as an exercise for the reader.

    That's most of the paper's finding, outside of a very cryptic Table 1 -- an ANOVA analysis showing P values of 0.001 for the past-to-present Occupational interview findings.

    The Background (Introduction), Discussion, Practice Implications, and Conclusions sections were comprised mostly of recitations of the obstacles, discrimination, and stressors that male-to-female transgender women face in life.
    - - - - -
    This is one of the strangest peer-reviewed papers that I have ever read. "Not even wrong" comes to mind, and at many levels.

    Circling back to the beginning: Anonymous[403] wrote, "[The linked "What We Know" webpage] is a meta-analysis of 56 studies, which concludes medical transition is strongly supported as a treatment for gender dysphoria."

    Are the other 51 transgender-transition-cheering studies of similar caliber? I didn't check further.

    The author-advocates of "What We Know" are betting that links to proper-sounding abstracts support their case. The quality of the underlying research doesn't matter: who will bother to check?

    They're probably right.

    Thanks.

  38. @Anonymous
    You deride meta studies, but then proceed to only use meta analysis to wave away the entire literature.

    The replication crisis is for stuff like implicit bias or stereotype threat that led to sweeping policy changes off of one study, which then fails to replicate.

    Fifty-six studies, overwhelming supporting medical transition. is not failure to replicate.

    Just say you find trans people icky and no research finding could ever change that opinion. It’s a lot shorter.

    I don’t find ‘trans’ people ‘icky’ in the slightest: they are of no interest to me one way or another – I have seen genuinely beautiful “women” who used to be men, and to the extent that looking at pretty things is pleasant, they add to life’s visuals.

    So long as nobody’s deceiving anybody, I would not bat an eyelid if one of them was in my orbit – and I can say that definitively, since a very good mate had a live-in ex-male partner for over a year. ‘She’ was up-front about the whole thing from well before my mate started going out with ‘her’.

    It didn’t make him (the mate) gay; it also didn’t make his partner an actual woman. (Leave aside the non-option of reproduction – implying that fertility is a requisite, which has the corollary that an infertile actual woman is less of a woman than a ‘breeder’, which is a reprehensible view).

    The thing that’s ‘icky’: ‘trans’ nonsense is now a thing that serial underperformers[1] falsely adopt in order to get attention – another in a long line of such things (ADD/ADHD, autism and/or ‘Asparagus’ Syndrome; eating disorders; ‘anxiety’ disorders; Wicca; Kabbalah).

    Claiming to be ‘trans’ has the side effect of rendering any opposition to any utterance as ‘transphobic’- which is why it’s most popular with outcast teens at or near the median, and social-climbing parents.

    (“If you disagree you’re a transphobe” is just a variation on the “Victim as Expert” theme… in the same way: anyone who objects to Palestinian children being shot to death by racist invaders is ipso facto an antisemite).

    [1] Yeah yeah, the Coen brothers are geniuses: such seichel it takes to make a movie. Smart? like a compuduh!.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    It didn’t make him (the mate) gay; it also didn’t make his partner an actual woman.
     
    Uh, you might want to reconsider that sentence...
    If man engages sexually with a partner who in reality is a man, then technically, that is a case of one man engaging sexually with another man. That, by definition, would be a homosexual act.

    (“If you disagree you’re a transphobe” is just a variation on the “Victim as Expert” theme… in the same way: anyone who objects to Palestinian children being shot to death by racist invaders is ipso facto an antisemite).
     
    I certainly appreciate both the critical distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, as well as your larger point that words such as transphobe (along with homophobe) are much the same as words like fascist, racist and now White Supremacist: Words that have become little more than nasty epithets used to a priori smear, discredit and dismiss individuals who challenge the prevailing orthodoxies.

    Ironic, then, that you would appear to use the term "racist" unironically.
    (Kevin Michael Grace* made a great, terse statement some time back asserting (paraphrasing from memory) that the man who unironically uses the word 'racist' is not a serious man, for it is the language of the enemy. Then, more recently, KMG quoted and praised Amy Wax's superb, defiant response to being called "racist".

    *Veteran Canadian journalist and commentator. Co-host of Luke Ford's YouTube stream.)
    -----------
    @ic1000:


    This is one of the strangest peer-reviewed papers that I have ever read. “Not even wrong” comes to mind, and at many levels.
     

    The author-advocates of “What We Know” are betting that links to proper-sounding abstracts support their case. The quality of the underlying research doesn’t matter: who will bother to check?
     
    Thanks for going to all that trouble.
  39. It must be the colour, but your avatar triggers thoughts of Pepe the Frog in my head … time for me to call Morgan & Morgan … for the people.

  40. Two problems.

    In my state, Michigan, and several others, the State Medical Association effectively banned med mal cases. It was easy because we used to have lifetime legislators who were very corrupt (that has since changed). The cases are possible in theory, but there is a very tight notice period that includes a report by a physician with exactly the same qualifications as the defendant. And you don’t get discovery first. Pretty much unless there is a cell video of the doc confessing he screwed up or a nurse that ratted, no lawsuit.

    Judges only allow cases they want to allow. They can easily skunk cases.

  41. @Jim Given
    A better analogy than lobotomy might be the use by parents of "psychiatric hospitals" which were really shock shops, which performed electroshock on their "freaked out" bearded drug-using suburban hippie kids in the late sixties. "Just give me back my kid the way he used to be" parents would say. That's what they got, a quiet well-behaved kid minus some of their right brain function. Shock shops did proliferate and did get sued. I don't know how many-

    Was there a giant lawsuit wave launched over people who should not have been lobotomized in the 1950's-1960's? (You might ask "Who should have been?" Maybe intractable epilepsy and incurable violent psychosis. They had limited options.)

    I’d often heard that electroshock therapy was a miracle cure that leaves everything intact but whatever it is that the shockee wanted to get rid of.

    The only guy I know who actually had it done is someone I got to know decades after his shock therapy and only found out about his apparently depressed 20s followed by shock therapy after I had already known him.

    Before finding out about his past the only thing that I found noticeably odd about this well adjusted, well respected, nice professional family man was how incredibly gay he sounded. He’s a public speaker who spoke, both in public and private, with a soft super gay tone and cadence.

    I’ve only ever come across a couple of other people who sounded so absolutely insanely gay.

    He doesn’t have any sort of liwp but both in the way he looks and in how he sounds there is something unsettlingly pseudo-feminine there.

    He’s a great guy, a highly respected guy and a great dad. If the only price he had to pay for not killling himself was…I dunno, estrogen production? then it was definitely worth it but until reading your comment I never gave any thought to whether his oddly faggy sound and look had anything to do with thr electroshock treatments he had years earlier. If anything, I’d assumed that he was born that way and that electroshock treatment helped him be okay with it.

    Now I’m curious.

  42. I’d often heard that electroshock therapy was a miracle cure that leaves everything intact but whatever it is that the shockee wanted to get rid of.

    The only guy I know who actually had it done is someone I got to know decades after his shock therapy and only found out about his apparently depressed 20s followed by shock therapy after I had already known him.

    Before finding out about his past the only thing that I found noticeably odd about this well adjusted, well respected, nice professional family man was how incredibly gay he sounded. He’s a public speaker who spoke, both in public and private, with a soft super gay tone and cadence.

    I’ve only ever come across a couple of other people who sounded so absolutely insanely gay.

    He doesn’t have any sort of liwp but both in the way he looks and in how he sounds there is something unsettlingly pseudo-feminine there.

    He’s a great guy, a highly respected guy and a great dad. If the only price he had to pay for not killling himself was…I dunno, estrogen production? then it was definitely worth it but until reading your comment I never gave any thought to whether his oddly faggy sound and look had anything to do with the electroshock treatments he had years earlier. If anything, I’d assumed that he was born that way and that electroshock treatment helped him be okay with it.

    Now I’m curious.

  43. @Anonymous
    You deride meta studies, but then proceed to only use meta analysis to wave away the entire literature.

    The replication crisis is for stuff like implicit bias or stereotype threat that led to sweeping policy changes off of one study, which then fails to replicate.

    Fifty-six studies, overwhelming supporting medical transition. is not failure to replicate.

    Just say you find trans people icky and no research finding could ever change that opinion. It’s a lot shorter.

    Anonymous[403], you wrote to Krastoklastes:

    > Fifty-six studies, overwhelming supporting medical transition. is not failure to replicate.

    In a comment above (currently #29), I took a detailed look at one of the 52 peer-reviewed studies that you claim “supports medical transition.”

    * That study, Bar et al. (2016) (see my comment for links) can not “support” medical transition. Its data are limited to self-reports on occupational status, health status, and life-satisfaction status of 22 male-to-female transgenders who transitioned (or are in the process of transitioning) as adults. The study finds that the occupational status of the trans-women is worse than that of a “matched” cisgender women control group. (The paper also alludes to lower self-report scores for health and life-satisfaction, but fails to present these results.)

    * Bar et al. does not attempt to compare men who went ahead with male-to-female transitioning with the relevant control group: men facing a similar situation who chose not to transition.

    * In my opinion, this study is junk science (for details, see my comment, supra).

    * In my opinion, the Cornell University authors of the “What We Know” web page engaged in junk science by their characterization of this study. Junk meta-science or junk meta-analysis, if you prefer.

    As you explained to Lot, you believe that medical professionals should encourage a boy who declares that he feels like he’s ‘really a girl’ to undergo male-to-female transition procedures at puberty. You have your reasons, and your personal experience. The “What We Know” authors have theirs, as do the Bar et. al authors.

    Other people differ. These are drastic and irreversible procedures with major known side effects, and other yet-to-be-appreciated long-term adverse consequences. Many, myself included, are appalled that pro-transition anecdote and opinion are being presented as an adequate basis for establishing a new and radical Standard of Care.

    It may be true that, for person X, a procedure worked “well” or was “likely better than the available alternatives.” But that’s a far cry from the medical establishment’s emerging One-Size-Fits-All dogma. And it’s hardly a reason to suppress dissenting voices.

    The blossoming of advocacy-fueled junk science brings a 2008 article to mind. Steve Richman cautioned cops (3-page PDF):

    Noble Cause Corruption is a mindset or sub-culture which fosters a belief that the ends justify the means. In other words, law enforcement is engaged in a mission to make our streets and communities safe, and if that requires suspending the constitution or violating laws ourselves in order to accomplish our mission, then for the greater good of society, so be it. The officers who adopt this philosophy lose their moral compass.

    Physicians, scientists, and advocates are not immune from taking shortcuts in the name of “the greater good of society.”

  44. @Hodag
    I used to be a trial lawyer. Putting these loons in front of a Cook County jury would be shooting fish in a barrel (if you get a decent judge). You would be able to bounce jurors for cause that are the Evanston types who believe transwomen are women and have closed their minds. That would leave you the white proles, Mexicans and blacks. They will crucify these docs and counselors and school councilors and....lots of people with lots of insurance.

    The biggest verdicts against recovered memory satanic abuse came out of a few psychologists loons at Rush Hospital. There were $20 million verdicts twenty years ago. This is the same.

    Also, is there any beautiful young neurosurgeons in the US? Start college at 18 then 4 year undergrad, 4 year med school, 1 year residency, 2 year neurology (or surgery I forget) and then 2 years neurosurgery ... Before fellowships. Neurosurgeons start at 30 or 31 I think. I get there are lots of fancy high end hookers put there. And a surgical nurse could fake it.

    “If you get a decent judge”. And if my aunt had balls she’d be my uncle.

    The reality is like every single other leftist project out there the judiciary is going to discover judicial gloss that says the tranny industry can’t be sued outside of a narrow window and that’s that.

    The Sacklers were literally caught red handed shifting money around to avoid having to give it up in bankruptcy or due to punitive charges and the response was “whattaya whattaya?”. Kate Steinle’s family can’t sue SF for its sanctuary policies but judges have decided Sandy Hook types can sue Remington because *Talmudic Lawgic*.

    You think there won’t be another “public figure” bit of interpretive reading when federal judges had to ride to the rescue to save northern papers from being sued by southern sheriffs during the civil rights jihad? C’mon man.

  45. @Marty T
    There is no such thing as a "transgender". These parents and doctors are committing child abuse.

    There is no such thing as a “transgender”.

    Of course there is not. It is all a scam. When I was a child no one had ever heard of such a thing, but it is what Richard Dawkins calls a meme, a kind of mutated non-genetic idea that has rapidly reproduced itself in the brains of human beings in the more economically developed nations as well as in sex tourism destinations like Thailand (no I have never been there).

    What does the word meme literally mean?

    English Language Learners Definition of meme : an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from one person to another in a culture

    [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]

    Aspberger Syndrome or autism is largely another scam by which parents of mentally retarded children can claim that they are special, and Attention Deficit Disorder is another scam by which parents of stupid children can claim that they are really very intelligent, only they act stupid.

    ** This is not true in every case, but more often than you would think.

    • Replies: @Jaakko Raipala
    Asperger's syncrome is being removed from the books due to overdiagnosis so the medical establishment is capable of correcting itself at least on this point. I think stuff is happening behind the scenes on the trans stuff but it's very hard for doctors to take a public dissident political stand since having a "bigot" doctor on payroll would make an institution vulnerable to lawfare.

    Asperger's syndrome is more like the label for normal to high IQ children with behavioral problems or even just a scam of middle class parents getting extra benefits for their kids. This is a huge problem in countries with "socialized medicine" which leads to access to doctors getting limited by long wait times instead of high prices. Since some people clearly need urgent health care the administrators create all sorts of exceptions and so everyone has an incentive to get diagnosed with as many conditions as possible to get ahead in the queues.

    Hence Greta Thunberg and her sister have Asperger, ADHD, OCD, defiant disorder and I can't even remember what else. You can't let your child go undiagnosed without any disorders as there are kids competing for appointments who have more problems on record. You can also use the medical diagnosis to jump the queue on a lot of other government programs like housing, daycare etc. They seem to be now busy working on a form of trans that requires just dressing up and no permanent changes and that will be very useful for getting special treatment in government services.

    Scandinavians have developed a whole new moral system that dictates which forms of trickery are acceptable to the middle class and which mark you as low class scum and these unwritten rules are part of why mass migration is such a disaster. How is some guy from Somalia supposed to understand that getting your kid diagnosed with ADHD to get better access to services makes you a good parent but that using the diagnosis to get welfare money or drugs makes you scum? It's not like this is ever going to be explained because that would give away the game that smart people are playing.

  46. @Anonymous
    Good tort lawyers venue shop heavily. Still, it sure seems that there is a lot of political postillionage as to which plaintiffs get kicked out and which get to go the distance.

    The failure of the gen-av industry to even show a good effort at judgmentproofing themselves and in fact to do exactly the opposite (Beech being bought by Raytheon, Cessna by Textron, going from deep pockets to saturaration-diving-level pockets) tells me they were not even playing to win. They're spoiled contractors, wanting to suck on the federal appendage of choice instead of selling to the civilian market at less than munificent margins.

    They’re spoiled contractors, wanting to suck on the federal appendage of choice instead of selling to the civilian market at less than munificent margins.

    You should see what Transdigm has done with sole-source component and subsystem vendors in the aerospace industry.

    Buy the original vendor out, gut the workforce, and raise prices 4000% to keep pumping up the stock price and soak the taxpayers.

    Nice work if you can get it.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransDigm_Group#Controversies

    https://www.pogo.org/report/2019/05/in-for-a-transdigm-out-for-billions/

    Joke refund to DoD:

    https://oversight.house.gov/news/press-releases/transdigm-to-refund-161-million-to-dod-as-a-result-of-committee-investigation

  47. @Jonathan Mason

    There is no such thing as a “transgender”.
     
    Of course there is not. It is all a scam. When I was a child no one had ever heard of such a thing, but it is what Richard Dawkins calls a meme, a kind of mutated non-genetic idea that has rapidly reproduced itself in the brains of human beings in the more economically developed nations as well as in sex tourism destinations like Thailand (no I have never been there).

    What does the word meme literally mean?

    English Language Learners Definition of meme : an idea, behavior, style, or usage that spreads from one person to another in a culture

    [Merriam-Webster Dictionary]

    Aspberger Syndrome or autism is largely another scam by which parents of mentally retarded children can claim that they are special, and Attention Deficit Disorder is another scam by which parents of stupid children can claim that they are really very intelligent, only they act stupid.

    ** This is not true in every case, but more often than you would think.

    Asperger’s syncrome is being removed from the books due to overdiagnosis so the medical establishment is capable of correcting itself at least on this point. I think stuff is happening behind the scenes on the trans stuff but it’s very hard for doctors to take a public dissident political stand since having a “bigot” doctor on payroll would make an institution vulnerable to lawfare.

    Asperger’s syndrome is more like the label for normal to high IQ children with behavioral problems or even just a scam of middle class parents getting extra benefits for their kids. This is a huge problem in countries with “socialized medicine” which leads to access to doctors getting limited by long wait times instead of high prices. Since some people clearly need urgent health care the administrators create all sorts of exceptions and so everyone has an incentive to get diagnosed with as many conditions as possible to get ahead in the queues.

    Hence Greta Thunberg and her sister have Asperger, ADHD, OCD, defiant disorder and I can’t even remember what else. You can’t let your child go undiagnosed without any disorders as there are kids competing for appointments who have more problems on record. You can also use the medical diagnosis to jump the queue on a lot of other government programs like housing, daycare etc. They seem to be now busy working on a form of trans that requires just dressing up and no permanent changes and that will be very useful for getting special treatment in government services.

    Scandinavians have developed a whole new moral system that dictates which forms of trickery are acceptable to the middle class and which mark you as low class scum and these unwritten rules are part of why mass migration is such a disaster. How is some guy from Somalia supposed to understand that getting your kid diagnosed with ADHD to get better access to services makes you a good parent but that using the diagnosis to get welfare money or drugs makes you scum? It’s not like this is ever going to be explained because that would give away the game that smart people are playing.

  48. @Anonymous
    Lol. Guess again. I am trans, but like what feminists call “toxic masculinity.” You know like soldiers and frat boys. I grew up with guys I find attractive calling me a “fag.”

    By encouraging transition at puberty, I’m trying to help trans women maximize their physical attractiveness, which will maximizes the ability of finding an open-minded guy. I’ve never seen a heterosexual guy with trans woman who didn’t pass.

    This may futile to ask, but try using basic logic. Autogynephilia is a paraphilia. Paraphilias don’t develop until during or after puberty. So kids who identify as trans before or at puberty logically aren’t autogynephiles.

    “Kids who identify as trans”. They’re kids. They don’t have sexual desires or any real conception of what life is going to be like once they do. They have no way of knowing if they are truly trans or not. They have no way of really understanding the implications of being sterilized. I used to like to wear skirts and play with Barbies as a 5 year old. I got over it by the time I was 8 or so and once I hit puberty I was attracted to men and grew up to be a run of the mill gay guy. The thought of someone putting me on puberty blockers and operating me is horrifying.

    People like you are psychotic and dangerous. Stop trying to destroy children’s lives in order to normalize yourself. And no, it’s not comparable to a children’s book with a gay couple or seeing a gay couple on Glee. ‘The Penguin with Two Daddies’ isn’t an irreversible, sterilizing medical procedure.

    I feel empathy for you, it must be very hard being trans, but “helping trans women maximize their beauty so they can find a straight male partner” is not an acceptable reason to wreck the lives of countless children, because unavoidably many of the kids put on those treatments will not identify as trans into adulthood like you have. Not everyone is meant to be beautiful and find the perfect partner. Life can be fulfilling in other ways.

  49. @Kratoklastes

    More than 80% of boys who engage in gender non-conformity grow out of it completely.
     
    The same is true (in broad strokes) about ADHD, anxiety, depression, anorexia, bulimia, and even drug addiction: the vast bulk of people afflicted by those things will get over it, and the key determinant appears to be "how fucked up is the victim's life in dimensions other than the symptom being examined?".

    However "HTFU"[1] is not a good business model for the psychosophasters: far better to get the victim into one of the main charlatanry-streams - endless talking[2] and/or a near-lifetime of different psychotropic cocktails that are guaranteed not to work.

    The core pharma research that validates psych drugs has diagnostic endpoints at ~6 weeks and still doesn't outperform placebo (once the literature is corrected for bias). Giving the victims meth, coke or molly for those six weeks would also give self-reported symptom-reduction, with no need to consider the longer term consequences of either.

    [1] Harden The Fuck Up. Velominati Rule #5.

    [2] Endless talking is a stupid pointless waste of time given that the interlocutor is peddling nonsense... but that makes it vastly superior to all forms of psychopharmacological intervention.

    2 reasons talk therapy is dead.

    1 Insurance companies no longer pay for it. Insurance companies only pay for treatments that work. Talk therapy doesn’t work.

    2 Support groups; it began with AA then Narcotics Anonymous, Al Anon for family members of alcoholics Weight loss groups Clutters Anonymous on and on and on for every emotional practical sexual career family problem.

    So instead of spending a fortune on a successor to Dr Sigmund Fraud people go to a church meeting room and talk about their problems and practical successful solutions with fellow sufferers and feel much better than after years of talk therapy.

    For much of the 20th century psychiatrists filled the criminal courts with their bogus testimony. Then at one of the big judicial conferences the judges took a good look at the evidence and decided not to admit psychiatric testimony as expert testimony. Psychiatric testimony was down graded to non expert or useless. Best thing the judges have ever done since 1790.

    Now the last stronghold of court appointed psychiatrists and counselors is in Family Court.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes
    If psych evidence is no longer given 'expert' weight in some jurisdiction, then that jurisdiction is the better for it.

    Sadly, it's not the case in mine.

    Some of The Lovely's practice includes periodic evaluation of people found unfit to be tried under our 'Crimes (Mental Impairment) Act'; psychosophasters' evidence plays a central role.

    Worst of all, as part of their conditions for non-incarceration, reviewees are often required to adhere with a course of psychosophaster-prescribed medication - which often includes medications that are known to generate adverse side-effects in isolation, let alone in combination. (Zolpidem and Risperdal spring to mind).

    So in exchange for avoiding a custodial sentence because they're retards or were slightly loopy at the time of the crime, these poor bastards are put on drugs that guarantee that at some future date they will lose their fucking minds and probably hurt someone... at which point they are subject to aggravated sentencing because of recidivism.

    .

    inb4 "What about the victims?". Incarcerating a person does fuck-all of tangible benefit to the victim.

    Want to help the victim? Make the perp a þrall to the victim for some specified period: if the victim doesn't want the perp nearby, give the victim the right to transfer the perp's þralldom.

    That would be a meaningful mechanism for redress, as opposed to consigning perps to crime-universities, where they are almost guaranteed to come out worse than they went in.

    It would also be more of a deterrent to a career petty-criminal: doing yard work for the victim every weekend for a year is more onerous for a petty-criminal than spending a month in the can.

    .
    However it's not useful to speculate on mechanisms that would serve the putative purpose of the system, because the putative purpose is a lie. The actual purpose is to assert control.

    Courts are quasi-religious institutions - the entire schtick is a religious set-piece, from the requirement to approach the system as a supplicant, through to the stupid requirement to pay undue homage to whoever is overseeing proceedings.

    As such, it is not reasonable to expect any understanding of, let alone acceptance or support of, the scientific method. It is an authoritarian structure, and ought to be understood as such (and opposed by anyone who believes in science).

    So courts routinely accept 'evidence' that has known, fatal flaws: bite marks; drug dog signalling; 'gut feeling'; and even forensic evidence in arson cases, have all been shown - quite incontrovertibly - to have no scientific grounding.

    It gets worse (if you're someone who cars about scientific validity): eyewitness testimony and even confessions are notoriously unreliable.

    Brady requirements are routinely ignored; parallel-construction is knowingly permitted; and so forth.

    To get an understanding of how things should be expected to work in reality... when one of my old muckers was defending an organised crime guy, he discovered that police were routinely violating the law regarding the swearing of warrants (making the warrants invalid).

    The police admitted as much, and admitted that the practice had been going on for decades.

    There was a risk that tens of thousands of convictions would have to be overturned, or re-tried without the evidence used that was obtained by the warrant (because that evidence would be fruit of the poisonous tree).

    The compensation bill for weak cases that resulted in incarceration, would have been in the billions.

    So what happened?

    Constitutionally-invalid retroactive legislation was passed; he was elevated to the Supreme Court; the entire Criminal Bar got the message that nobody is to touch this subject ever again. So nobody has (and nobody who wants to challenge the constitutional validity of the retroactive law can get a Constitutional expert interested: they are not interested in being identified as "unsafe hands").

    That's what happens in a religion when some part of the core doctrine is identified as false.

  50. @Puremania
    Hodag, I can vouch for what you are saying about Cook County, having spent much of my life there. If these manglers ever get before a jury, they will be atomized by the everyday blacks and Mexicans that I worked with. As for the “Evanston types”, I have tried to reason with them forever by using the comparison that Thomas Szasz used in the NYT Book Review. He said that cutting off your genitals to prove you are the opposite sex is tantamount to amputating your right hand to prove you are left-handed. But I have to admit, evoking lobotomies here may finally slap a few minds back to functional.
    As to anonymous(403) and “trans people can’t win with you lot”, a moment’s reflection should show you that it is you manglers who are uncomfortable with girlish boys and boyish girls. That’s why you’re brandishing knives and needles and playing sexually omniscient God.

    As for the “Evanston types”, I have tried to reason with them forever by using the comparison that Thomas Szasz used in the NYT Book Review. He said that cutting off your genitals to prove you are the opposite sex is tantamount to amputating your right hand to prove you are left-handed.

    Actually, upon giving it a few moments thought, I have to conclude that the analogy is flawed. If one severs his right hand, odds are that he will perforce come to rely upon his left hand to a degree sufficient that he could then, at least in a sense, be considered “left-handed”. But a male who severs his genitalia just becomes a mutilated/castrated male.

    As to anonymous(403) and “trans people can’t win with you lot”, a moment’s reflection should show you that it is you manglers who are uncomfortable with girlish boys and boyish girls. That’s why you’re brandishing knives and needles and playing sexually omniscient God.

    Apropos:
    4thWaveNow
    A community of parents & others questioning the medicalization of gender-atypical youth
    I learned of this site thanks to a comment that someone posted in a thread here a few years back. Note that the people who post at 4th Wave Now are far from the rabid, reactionary, unrepentent homophobic, cis-hetero-sexist-centric type that I am.

  51. @Kratoklastes
    I don't find 'trans' people 'icky' in the slightest: they are of no interest to me one way or another - I have seen genuinely beautiful "women" who used to be men, and to the extent that looking at pretty things is pleasant, they add to life's visuals.

    So long as nobody's deceiving anybody, I would not bat an eyelid if one of them was in my orbit - and I can say that definitively, since a very good mate had a live-in ex-male partner for over a year. 'She' was up-front about the whole thing from well before my mate started going out with 'her'.

    It didn't make him (the mate) gay; it also didn't make his partner an actual woman. (Leave aside the non-option of reproduction - implying that fertility is a requisite, which has the corollary that an infertile actual woman is less of a woman than a 'breeder', which is a reprehensible view).


    The thing that's 'icky': 'trans' nonsense is now a thing that serial underperformers[1] falsely adopt in order to get attention - another in a long line of such things (ADD/ADHD, autism and/or 'Asparagus' Syndrome; eating disorders; 'anxiety' disorders; Wicca; Kabbalah).

    Claiming to be 'trans' has the side effect of rendering any opposition to any utterance as 'transphobic'- which is why it's most popular with outcast teens at or near the median, and social-climbing parents.

    ("If you disagree you're a transphobe" is just a variation on the "Victim as Expert" theme... in the same way: anyone who objects to Palestinian children being shot to death by racist invaders is ipso facto an antisemite).



    [1] Yeah yeah, the Coen brothers are geniuses: such seichel it takes to make a movie. Smart? like a compuduh!.

    It didn’t make him (the mate) gay; it also didn’t make his partner an actual woman.

    Uh, you might want to reconsider that sentence…
    If man engages sexually with a partner who in reality is a man, then technically, that is a case of one man engaging sexually with another man. That, by definition, would be a homosexual act.

    (“If you disagree you’re a transphobe” is just a variation on the “Victim as Expert” theme… in the same way: anyone who objects to Palestinian children being shot to death by racist invaders is ipso facto an antisemite).

    I certainly appreciate both the critical distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, as well as your larger point that words such as transphobe (along with homophobe) are much the same as words like fascist, racist and now White Supremacist: Words that have become little more than nasty epithets used to a priori smear, discredit and dismiss individuals who challenge the prevailing orthodoxies.

    Ironic, then, that you would appear to use the term “racist” unironically.
    (Kevin Michael Grace* made a great, terse statement some time back asserting (paraphrasing from memory) that the man who unironically uses the word ‘racist’ is not a serious man, for it is the language of the enemy. Then, more recently, KMG quoted and praised Amy Wax’s superb, defiant response to being called “racist”.

    *Veteran Canadian journalist and commentator. Co-host of Luke Ford’s YouTube stream.)
    ———–
    @ic1000:

    This is one of the strangest peer-reviewed papers that I have ever read. “Not even wrong” comes to mind, and at many levels.

    The author-advocates of “What We Know” are betting that links to proper-sounding abstracts support their case. The quality of the underlying research doesn’t matter: who will bother to check?

    Thanks for going to all that trouble.

    • Replies: @Kratoklastes

    If man engages sexually with a partner who in reality is a man, then technically, that is a case of one man engaging sexually with another man. That, by definition, would be a homosexual act.
     
    That's not overly-technical in the dictionary-definition sense of the word 'homosexual', but it is a reach when compared to the term 'gay'.

    I think a useful working definition of 'gay' is "primarily attracted to persons of the same gender".

    By that definition, my mate wasn't (and isn't) 'gay': he's always gone out with very feminine women (and one very feminine ex-bloke - HA!).

    The 'ex-male' in question did not look remotely like a male; if you saw 'her' in the street you would think that you were looking at a ridiculously-attractive female (Jovovic/Theron/Kidman level, I kid you not - and I had always thought I could spot a 'changeling').


    The one side effect is that when he sends around pics of his newest squeeze, we jealous bastards can always say "Pfft... Probably a bloke".
  52. @Alden
    2 reasons talk therapy is dead.

    1 Insurance companies no longer pay for it. Insurance companies only pay for treatments that work. Talk therapy doesn’t work.

    2 Support groups; it began with AA then Narcotics Anonymous, Al Anon for family members of alcoholics Weight loss groups Clutters Anonymous on and on and on for every emotional practical sexual career family problem.

    So instead of spending a fortune on a successor to Dr Sigmund Fraud people go to a church meeting room and talk about their problems and practical successful solutions with fellow sufferers and feel much better than after years of talk therapy.

    For much of the 20th century psychiatrists filled the criminal courts with their bogus testimony. Then at one of the big judicial conferences the judges took a good look at the evidence and decided not to admit psychiatric testimony as expert testimony. Psychiatric testimony was down graded to non expert or useless. Best thing the judges have ever done since 1790.

    Now the last stronghold of court appointed psychiatrists and counselors is in Family Court.

    If psych evidence is no longer given ‘expert’ weight in some jurisdiction, then that jurisdiction is the better for it.

    Sadly, it’s not the case in mine.

    Some of The Lovely‘s practice includes periodic evaluation of people found unfit to be tried under our ‘Crimes (Mental Impairment) Act’; psychosophasters’ evidence plays a central role.

    Worst of all, as part of their conditions for non-incarceration, reviewees are often required to adhere with a course of psychosophaster-prescribed medication – which often includes medications that are known to generate adverse side-effects in isolation, let alone in combination. (Zolpidem and Risperdal spring to mind).

    So in exchange for avoiding a custodial sentence because they’re retards or were slightly loopy at the time of the crime, these poor bastards are put on drugs that guarantee that at some future date they will lose their fucking minds and probably hurt someone… at which point they are subject to aggravated sentencing because of recidivism.

    .

    inb4 What about the victims?”. Incarcerating a person does fuck-all of tangible benefit to the victim.

    Want to help the victim? Make the perp a þrall to the victim for some specified period: if the victim doesn’t want the perp nearby, give the victim the right to transfer the perp’s þralldom.

    That would be a meaningful mechanism for redress, as opposed to consigning perps to crime-universities, where they are almost guaranteed to come out worse than they went in.

    It would also be more of a deterrent to a career petty-criminal: doing yard work for the victim every weekend for a year is more onerous for a petty-criminal than spending a month in the can.

    .
    However it’s not useful to speculate on mechanisms that would serve the putative purpose of the system, because the putative purpose is a lie. The actual purpose is to assert control.

    Courts are quasi-religious institutions – the entire schtick is a religious set-piece, from the requirement to approach the system as a supplicant, through to the stupid requirement to pay undue homage to whoever is overseeing proceedings.

    As such, it is not reasonable to expect any understanding of, let alone acceptance or support of, the scientific method. It is an authoritarian structure, and ought to be understood as such (and opposed by anyone who believes in science).

    So courts routinely accept ‘evidence’ that has known, fatal flaws: bite marks; drug dog signalling; ‘gut feeling’; and even forensic evidence in arson cases, have all been shown – quite incontrovertibly – to have no scientific grounding.

    It gets worse (if you’re someone who cars about scientific validity): eyewitness testimony and even confessions are notoriously unreliable.

    Brady requirements are routinely ignored; parallel-construction is knowingly permitted; and so forth.

    To get an understanding of how things should be expected to work in reality… when one of my old muckers was defending an organised crime guy, he discovered that police were routinely violating the law regarding the swearing of warrants (making the warrants invalid).

    The police admitted as much, and admitted that the practice had been going on for decades.

    There was a risk that tens of thousands of convictions would have to be overturned, or re-tried without the evidence used that was obtained by the warrant (because that evidence would be fruit of the poisonous tree).

    The compensation bill for weak cases that resulted in incarceration, would have been in the billions.

    So what happened?

    Constitutionally-invalid retroactive legislation was passed; he was elevated to the Supreme Court; the entire Criminal Bar got the message that nobody is to touch this subject ever again. So nobody has (and nobody who wants to challenge the constitutional validity of the retroactive law can get a Constitutional expert interested: they are not interested in being identified as “unsafe hands”).

    That’s what happens in a religion when some part of the core doctrine is identified as false.

  53. @Dissident

    It didn’t make him (the mate) gay; it also didn’t make his partner an actual woman.
     
    Uh, you might want to reconsider that sentence...
    If man engages sexually with a partner who in reality is a man, then technically, that is a case of one man engaging sexually with another man. That, by definition, would be a homosexual act.

    (“If you disagree you’re a transphobe” is just a variation on the “Victim as Expert” theme… in the same way: anyone who objects to Palestinian children being shot to death by racist invaders is ipso facto an antisemite).
     
    I certainly appreciate both the critical distinction between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, as well as your larger point that words such as transphobe (along with homophobe) are much the same as words like fascist, racist and now White Supremacist: Words that have become little more than nasty epithets used to a priori smear, discredit and dismiss individuals who challenge the prevailing orthodoxies.

    Ironic, then, that you would appear to use the term "racist" unironically.
    (Kevin Michael Grace* made a great, terse statement some time back asserting (paraphrasing from memory) that the man who unironically uses the word 'racist' is not a serious man, for it is the language of the enemy. Then, more recently, KMG quoted and praised Amy Wax's superb, defiant response to being called "racist".

    *Veteran Canadian journalist and commentator. Co-host of Luke Ford's YouTube stream.)
    -----------
    @ic1000:


    This is one of the strangest peer-reviewed papers that I have ever read. “Not even wrong” comes to mind, and at many levels.
     

    The author-advocates of “What We Know” are betting that links to proper-sounding abstracts support their case. The quality of the underlying research doesn’t matter: who will bother to check?
     
    Thanks for going to all that trouble.

    If man engages sexually with a partner who in reality is a man, then technically, that is a case of one man engaging sexually with another man. That, by definition, would be a homosexual act.

    That’s not overly-technical in the dictionary-definition sense of the word ‘homosexual’, but it is a reach when compared to the term ‘gay’.

    I think a useful working definition of ‘gay’ is “primarily attracted to persons of the same gender“.

    By that definition, my mate wasn’t (and isn’t) ‘gay’: he’s always gone out with very feminine women (and one very feminine ex-bloke – HA!).

    The ‘ex-male’ in question did not look remotely like a male; if you saw ‘her’ in the street you would think that you were looking at a ridiculously-attractive female (Jovovic/Theron/Kidman level, I kid you not – and I had always thought I could spot a ‘changeling’).

    The one side effect is that when he sends around pics of his newest squeeze, we jealous bastards can always say “Pfft… Probably a bloke“.

    • Replies: @Dissident

    I think a useful working definition of ‘gay’ is “primarily attracted to persons of the same gender“.
     
    I appreciate your point but...

    First, there you go again, using insidious Cult-Marx language. Gender is a linguistic construct. The proper term here is Sex. You may find this pedantic but language is consequential.


    The ‘ex-male’ in question did not look remotely like a male; if you saw ‘her’ in the street you would think that you were looking at a ridiculously-attractive female
     
    I wonder how old he was when he transitioned (mutilated and cosmetically altered himself).

    At any rate, how many men would even entertain the thought of engaging sexually with an individual whom they knew to have been born male, no matter how convincingly or attractively female said individual would appear?

  54. @Anonymous
    You deride meta studies, but then proceed to only use meta analysis to wave away the entire literature.

    The replication crisis is for stuff like implicit bias or stereotype threat that led to sweeping policy changes off of one study, which then fails to replicate.

    Fifty-six studies, overwhelming supporting medical transition. is not failure to replicate.

    Just say you find trans people icky and no research finding could ever change that opinion. It’s a lot shorter.

    You deride meta studies, but then proceed to only use meta analysis to wave away the entire literature.

    Nope… review articles that evaluate methodology and/or investigate unreported secondary data characteristics, are different from what is currently understood to be a ‘meta-analysis’ (even though they are kinda ‘meta’).

    For example, if someone reviews 100 articles on a topic and finds that the p-values are all too close to 0.05: that’s a secondary characteristic that is good evidence of p-hacking (and/or weak actual statistical evidence). That’s valid AF, and (despite the ‘meta’) I would not use the word ‘meta-analysis’ for it – because that term is now understood to be pejorative.

    By contrast: cobble together 56 articles that have completely different methodologies; construct a Y/N variable for “does/doesn’t support my worldview“; do a weighted count of “Y” (with equal weights, weights by study size – who gives a shit); do literally zero investigation into the relative merits of the study methodologies. Rely on the fact that very few non-partisans give a shit, so there’s little likelihood that anyone will bother to check sources.

    That is bad research practice, which is to be expected from proselytes, and is typical of the ‘meta-analysis’ as practiced in bullshit non-scientific disciplines. It is an attempt (as made clear) to give an undeserved scientific veneer to a religiously-held view.

    There’s an interesting chap on YouTube (“WhatILearned”) who has enough energy to read and review significant amounts of the literature on topics that interest him: the inescapable conclusion is that a very large amount of ‘received wisdom’ is based on terribly-flawed research. (See, for example, his video on nutrition-as-we-currently-understand-it) ->

    Now… dietary and nutritional science has been weakly-hostage to partisan interests for the best part of a century, and it’s finally being unpicked. It’s getting closer to actual science, which is what happens once the partisans’ work gets examined scientifically (dispassionately, methodically).

    Trans-advocacy of the ’56 studies’ type is pseudoscience, and is not even close to producing anything that deserves to be called ‘scientific’.

  55. @Kratoklastes

    If man engages sexually with a partner who in reality is a man, then technically, that is a case of one man engaging sexually with another man. That, by definition, would be a homosexual act.
     
    That's not overly-technical in the dictionary-definition sense of the word 'homosexual', but it is a reach when compared to the term 'gay'.

    I think a useful working definition of 'gay' is "primarily attracted to persons of the same gender".

    By that definition, my mate wasn't (and isn't) 'gay': he's always gone out with very feminine women (and one very feminine ex-bloke - HA!).

    The 'ex-male' in question did not look remotely like a male; if you saw 'her' in the street you would think that you were looking at a ridiculously-attractive female (Jovovic/Theron/Kidman level, I kid you not - and I had always thought I could spot a 'changeling').


    The one side effect is that when he sends around pics of his newest squeeze, we jealous bastards can always say "Pfft... Probably a bloke".

    I think a useful working definition of ‘gay’ is “primarily attracted to persons of the same gender“.

    I appreciate your point but…

    First, there you go again, using insidious Cult-Marx language. Gender is a linguistic construct. The proper term here is Sex. You may find this pedantic but language is consequential.

    The ‘ex-male’ in question did not look remotely like a male; if you saw ‘her’ in the street you would think that you were looking at a ridiculously-attractive female

    I wonder how old he was when he transitioned (mutilated and cosmetically altered himself).

    At any rate, how many men would even entertain the thought of engaging sexually with an individual whom they knew to have been born male, no matter how convincingly or attractively female said individual would appear?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
Our Reigning Political Puppets, Dancing to Invisible Strings