Hacker News Reader

Comment by voidUpdate | Hacker News Reader

What is the administration's reason for cutting transgender research? Is it just "trans bad"?

What's peculiar was that a bunch of the research was about whether things like hormonal transition are safe, what kind of side-effects or lasting harm there may be, et c.

You know, the stuff they claim to be really worried about.

They're not interested in facts or outcomes, they just want to ban transness and gender non-conformity in general.

Similar to the abortion policy; see the Pulitzer winning article https://www.propublica.org/article/propublica-wins-pulitzer-... . Sure, it might kill some women, but they're never going to pay attention to that.

No; they want to have a distraction for their voters to latch their attention on to while they do other shit that is terrible.

Previously: communists / abortion

George Bush II: terrorists / LGBTQ+ / abortion

Trump: immigrants / LGBTQ+ / educators / liberals / terrorists / gangs / etc

> while they do other shit that is terrible

Namely, blow out the deficit to fund tax cuts and engage in massive grift.

BTQ+ only. Peter is gay so they don't hunt gays anymore.

This isn't a purely American thing, either. For quite a while, the British right's thing was Brexit. When Brexit actually happened, this kind of evaporated as a motivator, and they very visibly tried to pivot to transphobia as a primary voter motivator (it didn't really work, but it was remarkably blatant).

It's not peculiar at all because obviously those things are harmless, and that conclusion is harmful to the administration's political agenda, so why even research it when a foregone conclusion is readily available?

Nothing about those doses of hormones are harmless. If someone is transitioning, either they or their doctors considered it worth the risk - but the risks are serious.

This thread perfectly demonstrates the issue.

People have already made up their minds and it's inherently politicized, so if the research is funded by Republicans then it will be a study designed to emphasize the risks and harms and if it's funded by Democrats the opposite. Which means it's a waste of money to study because the outcome is decided by the political inclinations of the party that initially funded it, whereas the purpose of actual research is to study a question whose answer isn't known from the outset.

These hormones have been studied, both for this use, and in the general population for other uses, for literally decades. At this point actually more like 50 years.

While i’m sure there would be some additional data/value from an additional study, it’s not like any of this stuff is new or novel in any way.

I’m not sure how or if that agrees with or contradicts your comment, or same with whatever political BS is going on, but this stuff is pretty well understood at this point.

Just like GMO, something like that alters our biology to such significant level, there ought to be some inter generational studies carried out before trying it on human.

GMOs don't alter our biology. Like... at all. It's not like taking a medicine.

> obviously those things are harmless

I am not a transphobe but how in the world is that obvious?

It's not just transgender research it's also if an organization boycotts a certain foreign country (note: boycotting any other country is still OK): https://www.pulmonologyadvisor.com/news/nih-prohibits-dei-pr...

Reason? The reason is it is an issue that tested well with focus groups and they are an easy target that makes people uncomfortable.

They can demonize them as an enemy while doing horrible but harder to understand things like hollowing out election oversight.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_war#2012%E2%80%93prese...

That and “witches, 21st century edition”

To be fair "witches" were the culture war / moral panic of their time.

An interesting fact I learned from this [1] youtube video was that the 'Malleus Maleficarum' (The Hammer of Witches) book was very concerned (among other things) with witches casting spells that caused male genitalia to vanish.

1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIdcjeeYjaE

Fear of penis-stealing witches is apparently a thing among African Christian communities as well. It's probably a constant in any culture that believes in some form of witchcraft or sorcery.

Someone in the administration read the Cass Report from Britain, would be my guess.

It's kind of odd that one of the main talking points on the right is that there isn't enough evidence to determine e.g. the long-term safety of puberty blockers, but then they want to defund all research investigating this question?

No it isn't, when you understand that they're starting from the answer.

Maintaining uncertainty has always been the goal of these ideological movements. That’s also why they’re so eager to slash NOAA and climate science. If you can’t see it coming, then you can’t vote to stop it.

This is really insightful and I hadn't realized it, but I can see where to some people there is value in being sure and wrong and that these conmen take advantage of the comforting nature of certainty regardless of correctness.

Not when you want to preserve it as a wedge issue.

Guess what the political biases of the people reviewing NIH proposals for funding are.

Yes.

Pretty much.

Well, a straight answer that you may not like is that voters want different priorities: - reduce spending. - emphasize key public health priorities, like the chronic disease epidemic. - de-emphasize studies on gender identity, vaccine hesitancy, diversity, equity, and inclusion, climate change projects.

They’re increasing spending. And they are not funding any of the research you listed.

Please don’t lie about what the Republicans are doing. They have no desire to help Americans. Their goal is to destroy things that serve the public so that their billionaire masters can capture these services and charge Americans 10x what it used to cost them (their taxes).

well, you accuse me of lying, while you spew out nefarious theories.

I simply stated what the NIH director has publicly said. (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/jay-bhattachar...)

RE: they'are increasing spending. - can you provide some evidence?

RE: their goal is to destroy things that serve the public... - you must be a genius to see through their goals. Has it occured to you that maybe they simply reflect that desire of the people you disagree with.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com