Interesting article on transgender kids

[Amaris]

Firstly, Dr. Ken Zucker is an ideological asshole. He supports "reparative therapy" for gay people (though he has since backtracked on that), and considers transgender people to be mentally ill. He is often supported by organizations like NARTH, whom he has spoken for several times, including this particular speech about transgender "therapy" to make a trans person "normal."

Secondly, the other "expert" cited by the article, Dr. Alice Dreger, who feels the same as Dr. Zucker, and has her own hyperbolic issue with transgender children. Both of these "experts" are frequently lambasted by the LGBTQ community because while they claim to advocate for transgender people, they are usually found denouncing them as over-reactionary, mentally ill, or deluded.

In short, sonak, you're asking me the equivalent of what I think of Ken Ham's views on evolution. There's nothing to discuss here, unless you're out to take a dig at people who are transgender. Believe me, they don't need anymore bullies, or misguided and ignorant people trying to "help."

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm going to limit my remarks to just the text of Wente's article, since the OP has asked that we do that. Personally, I think that it is entirely appropriate to see who it is who is being interviewed, but J has that covered.

Fine, then rather than hard evidence or numbers, what are thoughts on the views and concerns expressed by the two professionals that she quoted in the article?

Here's an idea: Since you're the one who's interested, you do the grunt work and extract the views, concerns, and/or quotations that you'd like feedback on.

Well I don't want to limit the scope of feedback, but how about:

1. is the internet and pop culture having the impact of artificially inflating numbers for this?

Since Wente doesn't tell us what question she actually asked them to prompt their responses,* as the responses are presented there's just no way to interpret Dr. Zucker's and Dr. Woods' remarks, respectively about the Internet and Oprah, as anything other than an indication of where people who might be struggling are getting their information about gender dysphoria. That people would be getting their information from the Internet and TV is hardly unexpected and hardly scandalous.

2. the potential harmful effects that hormone therapy or other treatments can have if done too soon or if the diagnosis turns out to be incorrect

Where's the evidence that hormone therapy is being done too soon, in cases of shaky diagnoses, or in cases when it isn't medically necessary? We have only the opinions of Wente's credentialed sources to go by. And, oh, what sources.

3. this one I mentioned before, but the issue of is the wait and see approach being discredited not by science or sound psychology but politics, and a fear of being labeled conservative or reactionary, as well as confusion between that approach and reparative therapy?

Let's see a citation of the wait and see approach being discredited and evaluate it in context. Oh wait, we can't, because Wente's piece doesn't give any examples, so we have no idea what Wente's sources might be referring to, do we? Or do we?

* - "What's going on?" is the question that motivated her to sit down with her interviewees. There are no assurances that that is the question actually posed that they are responding to.

 

[sonak]

Firstly, Dr. Ken Zucker is an ideological asshole. He supports "reparative therapy" for gay people (though he has since backtracked on that), and considers transgender people to be mentally ill. He is often supported by organizations like NARTH, whom he has spoken for several times, including this particular speech about transgender "therapy" to make a trans person "normal."

Secondly, the other "expert" cited by the article, Dr. Alice Dreger, who feels the same as Dr. Zucker, and has her own hyperbolic issue with transgender children. Both of these "experts" are frequently lambasted by the LGBTQ community because while they claim to advocate for transgender people, they are usually found denouncing them as over-reactionary, mentally ill, or deluded.

In short, sonak, you're asking me the equivalent of what I think of Ken Ham's views on evolution. There's nothing to discuss here, unless you're out to take a dig at people who are transgender. Believe me, they don't need anymore bullies, or misguided and ignorant people trying to "help."

Well I didn't know what the backgrounds of either of the two individuals in the article were. I am certainly not out to take a dig at people who are transgender, though I would caution that disagreements on treatment or on specific issues of importance to a specific community should not be casually conflated with ignorance or bigotry.(this isn't meant as a subtle reference to anything specifically regarding the LGBTQ community, most "identity-oriented" groups are guilty of it to some degree.)

The article you linked to seems to indicate that he has fairly conservative and rigid views on gender expression but also indicates that he's a well-qualified and respected expert in his field, which is not at all analogous to Ken Ham, who is regarded as a joke by scientists.

 

[Amaris]

Well I didn't know what the backgrounds of either of the two individuals in the article were. I am certainly not out to take a dig at people who are transgender, though I would caution that disagreements on treatment or on specific issues of importance to a specific community should not be casually conflated with ignorance or bigotry.(this isn't meant as a subtle reference to anything specifically regarding the LGBTQ community, most "identity-oriented" groups are guilty of it to some degree.)

You sound like you're taking a "teach the controversy" position. Ignorance is not an excuse. You cited this article, agreed with it, and stood by the biases of its author. That does not look well on you.

 

[sonak]

Well I didn't know what the backgrounds of either of the two individuals in the article were. I am certainly not out to take a dig at people who are transgender, though I would caution that disagreements on treatment or on specific issues of importance to a specific community should not be casually conflated with ignorance or bigotry.(this isn't meant as a subtle reference to anything specifically regarding the LGBTQ community, most "identity-oriented" groups are guilty of it to some degree.)

You sound like you're taking a "teach the controversy" position. Ignorance is not an excuse. You cited this article, agreed with it, and stood by the biases of its author. That does not look well on you.

Why? Ignoring the biases or backgrounds of the person who wrote it, I'm still somewhat baffled as to what's in it that's so prejudiced or ignorant. It's not calling for reparative therapy. It doesn't condone prejudice or mistreatment of transgender individuals. It doesn't deny the existence of gender dysphoria. In short, the article is about as controversial as saying "we should be cautious in diagnosing this condition at a young age both because that's generally the way it is for many psychological conditions and because in this particular case some of the treatments for it can potentially cause harm."

Now if you took away the names of those referenced in the article, that strikes me as a pretty cautious and reasonable statement. Is it "concern trolling?" Maybe, all though that term gets used a lot and often carelessly.

And no, I wasn't saying "teach the controversy." That's a rhetorical stunt made by creationists who are intentionally being dishonest, and as I wrote, the comparison is not valid. There are well-qualified psychiatrists who are expressing disagreements about something that is less settled than something like the theory of evolution, which is only a "controversy" in the eyes of those who are either uninformed on it or intentionally trying to kick up dust about it for their own agenda.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

I'm still somewhat baffled as to what's in it that's so prejudiced or ignorant.

Then, all of my efforts have been utterly wasted. Rest assured, that won't happen again.

 

[Amaris]

Why? Ignoring the biases or backgrounds of the person who wrote it, I'm still somewhat baffled as to what's in it that's so prejudiced or ignorant. It's not calling for reparative therapy. It doesn't condone prejudice or mistreatment of transgender individuals. It doesn't deny the existence of gender dysphoria. In short, the article is about as controversial as saying "we should be cautious in diagnosing this condition at a young age both because that's generally the way it is for many psychological conditions and because in this particular case some of the treatments for it can potentially cause harm."

Now if you took away the names of those referenced in the article, that strikes me as a pretty cautious and reasonable statement. Is it "concern trolling?" Maybe, all though that term gets used a lot and often carelessly.

And no, I wasn't saying "teach the controversy." That's a rhetorical stunt made by creationists who are intentionally being dishonest, and as I wrote, the comparison is not valid. There are well-qualified psychiatrists who are expressing disagreements about something that is less settled than something like the theory of evolution, which is only a "controversy" in the eyes of those who are either uninformed on it or intentionally trying to kick up dust about it for their own agenda.

If we remove the two sources she cited, all that leaves us with is an ignorant person with an ignorant opinion. What is there to discuss? Her opinion has no merit, because it was formed in ignorance, and stated in ignorance. Again, what is there to discuss?

You want to discuss? Let's discuss:

"She's full of shit, because her opinions are ignorant, and poorly formed, and she exercises caution where none is in evidence of being needed."

End of discussion. New thread. How about vaccines and childhood autism? Let's discuss caution.

 

[Greylock Crescent]

Ignoring the biases or backgrounds of the person who wrote it, I'm still somewhat baffled as to what's in it that's so prejudiced or ignorant.

Ohboy. "The article is written by someone who is prejudiced and ignorant, but if we somehow ignored the ignorant and prejudiced purpose for writing said article, as well as the ignorant and prejudiced conclusions in said article ..."

Yeah, that line of reasoning just doesn't hold water.

 

[Amaris]

Okay, I'm going there:

You know, while you have to ignore the author of Mein Kampf, who obviously has biases, you do have to kind of wonder, his opinions aside, whether there might be something to this whole "Jews are subhuman scum" thing, ya know? Let's discuss.


[/end sarcasm]

 

[Greylock Crescent]

J. Allen: FTGW!

 

[sonak]

Why? Ignoring the biases or backgrounds of the person who wrote it, I'm still somewhat baffled as to what's in it that's so prejudiced or ignorant. It's not calling for reparative therapy. It doesn't condone prejudice or mistreatment of transgender individuals. It doesn't deny the existence of gender dysphoria. In short, the article is about as controversial as saying "we should be cautious in diagnosing this condition at a young age both because that's generally the way it is for many psychological conditions and because in this particular case some of the treatments for it can potentially cause harm."

Now if you took away the names of those referenced in the article, that strikes me as a pretty cautious and reasonable statement. Is it "concern trolling?" Maybe, all though that term gets used a lot and often carelessly.

And no, I wasn't saying "teach the controversy." That's a rhetorical stunt made by creationists who are intentionally being dishonest, and as I wrote, the comparison is not valid. There are well-qualified psychiatrists who are expressing disagreements about something that is less settled than something like the theory of evolution, which is only a "controversy" in the eyes of those who are either uninformed on it or intentionally trying to kick up dust about it for their own agenda.

If we remove the two sources she cited, all that leaves us with is an ignorant person with an ignorant opinion. What is there to discuss? Her opinion has no merit, because it was formed in ignorance, and stated in ignorance. Again, what is there to discuss?

You want to discuss? Let's discuss:

"She's full of shit, because her opinions are ignorant, and poorly formed, and she exercises caution where none is in evidence of being needed."

End of discussion. New thread. How about vaccines and childhood autism? Let's discuss caution.

No, I meant "pretend you don't know the names or backgrounds of the individuals she cites, and just focus on what they say," not literally to disregard them.

And again, the comparison with vaccines is invalid because that was all based on a debunked study, and can be tested empirically. But whatever, this is going in circles. "The argument is ignorant because it's being expressed by someone who is ignorant." Okay

 

[Greylock Crescent]

The argument is ignorant because it's being expressed by someone who is ignorant.

Good point.

 

[Amaris]

J. Allen: FTGW!

I did it... for my country.

No, I meant "pretend you don't know the names or backgrounds of the individuals she cites, and just focus on what they say," not literally to disregard them.

And again, the comparison with vaccines is invalid because that was all based on a debunked study, and can be tested empirically. But whatever, this is going in circles. "The argument is ignorant because it's being expressed by someone who is ignorant." Okay

What the hell do you want here? What are you asking? Do you even know? Let's review:

First it's "let's look at this interesting article!"

Then when it's pointed out that the author is biased and uninformed, you reply, "well what about her sources?!"

At which point you're shown that her sources are nitwits who are outcasts among the LGBTQ community, to which you reply, "Well, never mind her sources, what about what they actually said?"

Is there even a point to any of this? If we ignore the bias of the author, ignore the biases of the article, ignore the uninformed opinions of the author's sources, and have only those uninformed opinions to go on, what the hell do you want to discuss? As I said before, the opinions cited are ignorant, uninformed, and biased against transgendered people. There's nothing left to discuss but how stupid the article is, but even then, you stated that the article reflected some of your views, so WHAT IS IT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS OTHER THAN THAT YOU CONSIDER YOUR OWN VIEWS IGNORANT AND BIASED?

I hope the capital letters get the point across, because people have been trying for several pages, and you're still missing the point, and no one, as of yet, has any clue as to what the hell you're trying to discuss other than "I find it creepy that there might be transgendered children."

Eh? What have you got left?

 

[CorporalCaptain]

No, I meant "pretend you don't know the names or backgrounds of the individuals she cites, and just focus on what they say," not literally to disregard them.

I engaged in that exercise, and I know Locutus engaged in that exercise in the post of his that I quoted. Those posts may as well have not even been submitted, for all the good they did.

 

[sonak]

J. Allen: FTGW!

I did it... for my country.

No, I meant "pretend you don't know the names or backgrounds of the individuals she cites, and just focus on what they say," not literally to disregard them.

And again, the comparison with vaccines is invalid because that was all based on a debunked study, and can be tested empirically. But whatever, this is going in circles. "The argument is ignorant because it's being expressed by someone who is ignorant." Okay

What the hell do you want here? What are you asking? Do you even know? Let's review:

First it's "let's look at this interesting article!"

Then when it's pointed out that the author is biased and uninformed, you reply, "well what about her sources?!"

At which point you're shown that her sources are nitwits who are outcasts among the LGBTQ community, to which you reply, "Well, never mind her sources, what about what they actually said?"

Is there even a point to any of this? If we ignore the bias of the author, ignore the biases of the article, ignore the uninformed opinions of the author's sources, and have only those uninformed opinions to go on, what the hell do you want to discuss? As I said before, the opinions cited are ignorant, uninformed, and biased against transgendered people. There's nothing left to discuss but how stupid the article is, but even then, you stated that the article reflected some of your views, so WHAT IS IT YOU WANT TO DISCUSS OTHER THAN THAT YOU CONSIDER YOUR OWN VIEWS IGNORANT AND BIASED?

I hope the capital letters get the point across, because people have been trying for several pages, and you're still missing the point, and no one, as of yet, has any clue as to what the hell you're trying to discuss other than "I find it creepy that there might be transgendered children."

Eh? What have you got left?

I said that my views are biased, not ignorant. We're all biased in some way, I'm admitting mine. Yes, I looked for an article that supported my point of view. However, since I'm aware of my bias, I also challenge it by reading other points of views. You can choose to believe this or not, but I have read numerous material on the other side of this issue. I don't think the other side is silly, I just disagree with it.

And I also had hoped for a discussion without accusations about my motives or accusations that I was prejudiced, but oh well.

 

[sonak]

No, I meant "pretend you don't know the names or backgrounds of the individuals she cites, and just focus on what they say," not literally to disregard them.

I engaged in that exercise, and I know Locutus engaged in that exercise in the post of his that I quoted. Those posts may as well have not even been submitted, for all the good they did.

No, I got what you were saying. You both said that there wasn't reference to any hard evidence, studies, or data, and that it was just opinions.

 

[Amaris]

I said that my views are biased, not ignorant. We're all biased in some way, I'm admitting mine. Yes, I looked for an article that supported my point of view. However, since I'm aware of my bias, I also challenge it by reading other points of views. You can choose to believe this or not, but I have read numerous material on the other side of this issue. I don't think the other side is silly, I just disagree with it.

And I also had hoped for a discussion without accusations about my motives or accusations that I was prejudiced, but oh well.

You said your views were biased, and they were biased in favor of the article, which you found interesting. The article had a biased author, biased sources, and no data to support it. This makes your opinion to be one based in ignorance. Why wouldn't anyone challenge your views? You wanted a discussion, correct? Well, a discussion about the topic will require you to voice your views, and explain your motivations, which will also come under discussion. This is how discussions go. This is why I keep wondering what you were expecting when you started this thread.

 

[CorporalCaptain]

How do you reconcile these two posts of yours?

You both said that there wasn't reference to any hard evidence, studies, or data, and that it was just opinions.

I'm still somewhat baffled as to what's in it that's so prejudiced or ignorant.

If you agree with us about the lack of hard evidence being referenced, then the content of Wente's article is just opinion that's unsupported by evidence. Assuming she hasn't held back her best arguments, that's the very definition of an uninformed opinion. How is that not both ignorant and prejudiced?

The only other option is that you don't agree with our assessment of the text. I'd very much like to see where we've gone astray in that respect.

 

[sonak]

How do you reconcile these two posts of yours?

You both said that there wasn't reference to any hard evidence, studies, or data, and that it was just opinions.

I'm still somewhat baffled as to what's in it that's so prejudiced or ignorant.

If you agree with us about the lack of hard evidence being referenced, then the content of Wente's article is just opinion that's unsupported by evidence. Assuming she hasn't held back her best arguments, that's the very definition of an uninformed opinion. How is that not both ignorant and prejudiced?

The only other option is that you don't agree with our assessment of the text. I'd very much like to see where we've gone astray in that respect.

It's not ignorant or prejudiced in that she's not actually advocating any policies or views that are ignorant or prejudiced. As I summarized upthread, she's not advocating for ill treatment of them, she's not denying that the condition is a real thing or that gender reassignment can be effective in certain cases.

In short, what I'm getting from your responses is that expressing an opposing view on the issue itself is all that there is as evidence of an expression of ignorance. You're acting like it's a settled issue and the only motivation for arguing her position MUST by definition be ignorance or prejudice, and considering the history of the field of psychiatry and psychology I don't think that's a fair position to take.

I admit that I should have researched the author of the article and the people she references in it, but then again, it's not like posting on a message board is like academic research or that I'm a paid blogger or something. I was merely presenting a "this is interesting" topic. I guess it was only interesting to me.

 

[Amaris]

It's not ignorant or prejudiced in that she's not actually advocating any policies or views that are ignorant or prejudiced.

Let me get this straight: So what you're saying is that you're not prejudiced until you want something acted upon. Until you want to take action, your opinions aren't ignorant or prejudiced.

Let's have an example, because I do so love examples:

"The Sun revolves around the Earth." = Not ignorant.
"Black people smell, and are dumber than the white race." = Not prejudiced.
"Transgender kids are deluded, and mentally ill." = Neither ignorant, or prejudiced.

That's amazing.

As I summarized upthread, she's not advocating for ill treatment of them, she's not denying that the condition is a real thing or that gender reassignment can be effective in certain cases.

In short, what I'm getting from your responses is that expressing an opposing view on the issue itself is all that there is as evidence of an expression of ignorance. You're acting like it's a settled issue and the only motivation for arguing her position MUST by definition be ignorance or prejudice, and considering the history of the field of psychiatry and psychology I don't think that's a fair position to take.

I admit that I should have researched the author of the article and the people she references in it, but then again, it's not like posting on a message board is like academic research or that I'm a paid blogger or something. I was merely presenting a "this is interesting" topic. I guess it was only interesting to me.

Yes, you should have researched the article before finding it "interesting." I would have waited until it fit descriptions such as "relevant," or maybe "accurate," before posting them on a board filled with people who are naturally skeptical of such things.