Hacker News Reader

Comment by drekipus | Hacker News Reader

> This should be handled with care, and extra consideration should be given to whether the tenuous, fallible results from this research will result in violence.

What is "results in violence" though? One person's violence would be another person's justice.

I think trans activism with kids is a severe violence. Would research in allowing transgenderism for children be considered violence or not in your eyes? I'm sure there's people on both sides of the fence, so who would be the one to gatekeep?

Most transgender studies come from the same "reproducibility crisis" and largely the same branch of social/psychology science.

So to put in effect that "we are allowed to suppress science depending on who it affects" would be a bad precedent for when "the other side" gets in power.

Or do you not agree?

View on HN

> I think trans activism with kids is a severe violence.

You think trans activism is equivalent to shooting someone?

I mean, i think most people are going to dismiss you as crazy if you think words and ideas of any form are equivalently violent to shooting someone in the head. At the very least you would need to back up such a radical proposition with some very compelling arguments.

Then perhaps you should be a little less materialist? Psychological violence can be more terrible than physical violence.

And ideologies caused more damages and deaths in history than any conventional "war".

I am really looking forward a trans revolution, with rainbow coloured flags and a trans-dictatorship to dominate the world...

... or maybe there is no ideology, but just people claiming some basic rights?

Yes,in extreme cases psychological abuse can be worse than physical violence, but you kind of need to back up what you're talking about is such a case *.

Its sort of like if you said, beans are just as bad as being shot, then later clarified that you are talking about fatal food poisioning from bad beans. I mean, i guess technically fatal food poisioning is about as bad as being shot, but if you just say "beans are like being shot" without qualification, people are going to think that's a crazy statement, because it is.

* to be clear im talking hypothetically. I don't agree that "trans-activism" (whatever the fuck that means) is violence in any way shape or form.

Trans people are being systematically oppressed. New laws are being made to single them out and ban them from public life. Characterizing healthcare for trans people as "violence" is rather disgusting attempt to further marginalize them by denying them medical services.

The Conservative push to make trans people the new Boogeyman is absolutely wretched.

Epic straw man. Is your counter argument so poor that you must resort to defeating a comically false version of what OP said? Where in the world does shooting someone in the head come in based on what OP said?!?

Context is a thing.

Person was responding to a comment that mentioned shooting, and proposing an alternate situation. One presumes they are claiming the alternate situation is equivalent or their comment makes no sense as a response to the previous comment they were replying to.

You are mistaken or on the wrong comment chain.

While we're listing informal fallacies:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation

>> I think trans activism with kids is a severe violence.

>You think trans activism is equivalent to shooting someone?

You missed a pretty important word there.

> Most transgender studies come from the same "reproducibility crisis" and largely the same branch of social/psychology science.

No, this is wrong. A lot of the research into trans healthcare comes from endocrinology, not psychology. Psychologists are not prescribing meds or performing surgery.

Well words like "transgenderism" don't even mean anything and are just far-right buzzwords to scare people like you, so consider first looking into what's informing your worldview. It's certainly not anything approaching objectivity

I can name a specific dogma of transgenderism: That gender is more than performing (like an actor on the stage) an arbitrary set of gender ideals.

Don't know where you get that idea, honestly. A lot of trans people certainly think that, but there is definitely no consensus within the trans community about the definition of gender. Personally I even subscribe more to performativity (mostly as described by Judith Butler) than any other theory. But also I don't care that much about gender philosophy.

My "transgenderism ideology" is quite simple: other people's gender or presentation is none of my business and everyone deserves the same basic human rights. If that's dogma, okay I guess

Where i got my thought from: Whats the purpose of transitioning when you aren't performing your gender in the first place? There isn't much left them.

I assume you mean medical transition, since socially transitioning--such as by changing your name and pronouns--would generally be considered performing a gender even if that doesn't involve changing things like clothing and behaviours (e.g. cis tomboys and femboys exist and are performing the gender they were assigned at birth, just not in a typical way)

A short answer is impossible here, I think. But if you're genuinely interested I highly recommend this essay about medical transition: https://transwrites.world/have-we-got-it-wrong-on-dysphoria-...

Next transgenderism dogma: Socially transitioning being a thing.

I don't believe that wearing specific clothes and demanding she/her pronouns from other people makes me less male than i happened to be. Or more female. Nor do i believe this applies for other people or sex swapped.

> just not in a typical way

We are in a post-enlightenment democracy. You can just do atypical things. And it doesn't make you more or less female or male or transitioning or anything like that. Not everything will fit into words, but that's the nature of things.

> You can just do atypical things. And it doesn't make you more or less female or male or transitioning or anything like that.

...yes

That's why I said cis tomboys are still girls and cis femboys are still boys (not sure what the enlightenment or democracy have to do with this discussion)

> I don't believe that wearing specific clothes and demanding she/her pronouns from other people makes me less male than i happened to be. Or more female. Nor do i believe this applies for other people or gender roles swapped.

I can see this discussion won't go anywhere if you're not willing to justify your beliefs, and if you're going to continue insisting that trans people are a monolith. And at the same time imply the tired and untrue claim that trans people deny biology (no one thinks swapping clothes changes your sex characteristics). When we say socially transitioning, we just mean performing gender in a different way, it's just being contrarion to say it's "not a thing", this is probably one of the few objectively true things about trans people.

And it's contradictory to claim that gender performativity is correct, and then later also claim that your performance of gender does not change your gender. Pick a side

> Pick a side

I edited the post to show "sex" instead of "gender", assuming that confused you.

Feel free to insist on performing, neither of us two has to play by the rules of the other.

> "trans activism with kids"

What does this even mean? Medical care?

I guess promoting and using kids with psychological problems as icons for the ideology...

what "ideology"?

Bullying trans people and using them as a societal scapegoat is more of an "ideology" than just being trans.

Exactly. Anything novel is, by definition, risky. Therefore any and all research has the potential to harm people. What the article says is, that there is an apparently all-knowing group of people, who will decide, where an article lies on a scale between abstract algebra and direct calls to genocide in terms of its impact on people. Oh, and the same group of people is also directly interested in publishing (so they’ll have to let _some_ papers through) as well as being part of the scientific community preparing the papers. So a massive conflict of interest. What could possibly go wrong?

And don't forget, they are also extremely politically invested. Many sociologists get into the field explicitly to "fight racism" or what have you, and the vast majority of the field is very left-leaning.

Being trans is not novel. The recent scaremongering about trans people is what's new. Previously people being gay was the end of the world. Now that homosexuality is more acceptable bigots are focusing on trans people to use as a punching bag.

>I think trans activism with kids is a severe violence.

Have you ever occurred to you to consult a dictionary, to check the meaning of the word “violence”?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com