Author Topic: Rebuttal to "The Transgender Agenda"  (Read 2851 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline ashadyna

  • Newbie
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Reputation: +1/-0
Rebuttal to "The Transgender Agenda"
« on: October 05, 2016, 06:22:16 am »
There is a popular video on Youtube that provides a very slanted (anti-trans) summary of the research on gender identity and transition. On different forums, I have seen people have express concern about this specific video when coming out.

I made a detailed rebuttal to this video:


Offline ashadyna

  • Newbie
  • **
  • Posts: 29
  • Reputation: +1/-0
Re: Rebuttal to "The Transgender Agenda"
« Reply #1 on: October 05, 2016, 03:15:37 pm »
I am a little confused why this topic was moved out of the science section.  The video discusses academic research on the biologic basis for gender identity, clinical evidence on the long-term impact of cross sex hormonal therapy, and studies on the stability (or lack thereof) of gender identity at different ages. 

This seems relevant to the "scientific and medical aspects of being transgender."

Offline Brooke

  • *
  • Posts: 500
  • Reputation: +4/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Rebuttal to "The Transgender Agenda"
« Reply #2 on: October 05, 2016, 04:48:22 pm »
I agree, should be in science section. @ashasyna thx for putting time and effort into giving a more accurate interpretation of the study. Well done !


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Dena

  • Family
  • *****
  • *
  • Posts: 16,185
  • Reputation: +122/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Rebuttal to "The Transgender Agenda"
« Reply #3 on: October 05, 2016, 05:30:08 pm »
The key word is "News". That portion of the site (News and Events) is reserved for the News Staff and contains freshly published news stories. Non staff members may post in that area but their postings need to be freshly published news items and be in the proper formatting. The news staff is willing to help with the formatting if you have not yet learned how to do it.

As a Global Moderator, I can work the news areas if there are problems that need to be addressed now but the final decision on actions in the News section of the site are made by the news staff and I am a guest in that area.
Rebirth Date 1982 - My Transition

Offline JMJW

  • Friend
  • ****
  • Posts: 442
  • Reputation: +8/-0
  • Gender: Female
Re: Rebuttal to "The Transgender Agenda"
« Reply #4 on: October 16, 2016, 05:57:47 pm »
I've heard neocons like Ben Shapiro and Milo Yianopolous say that the suicide rate pre or post transition/SRS is no different, with them both calling it cruelty on that basis. Neither of them have yet cited the study that shows this. I don't know where they get that from. ??? I mean they say it  with such confidence.   ::)

Virginia Hall

Re: Rebuttal to "The Transgender Agenda"
« Reply #5 on: October 16, 2016, 06:52:51 pm »
There is a popular video on Youtube that provides a very slanted (anti-trans) summary of the research on gender identity and transition. On different forums, I have seen people have express concern about this specific video when coming out.

As someone who was thinking about having SRS when I was a kid (this was back in the 1950s) I recall reading that anyone accepted for SRS in Sweden in that era had to have made two previous (serious) suicide attempts. I began to wonder how I could fake two suicide attempts to get SRS--what we won't do to get what we need! If they had said only Mercury astronauts could get SRS, I would have headed for Cape Canaveral to get the needed credentials!

Gender programs from the 1950s up into the 1970s preferentially chose to treat individuals with suicide histories--the credentials, so to speak. I can't cite exactly where, but I believe my source was a pop article in Science Digest sometime fall 1959-spring 1960. In fact nearly all the programs wanted people who had attempted suicide, including Hopkins. I never considered Hopkins because I saw I would not qualify in as much as I had never thought of harming myself.

So all of us non-suicidal college and grad school folks who had saved up went off to Trinidad, or New York City where you did not need to be a suicidal patient to get "studied" to get SRS, and right afterwards we all disappeared into the woodwork.

I attach a response to an article in the news, where I,too, rebutt the dim prognoses. This is my comment from Zack Ford's, main article in Think Progress which I posted elsewhere last week.

Quote
Insofar as the oft cited trans data of McHugh, from the Johns Hopkins transgender program, a total of 22 patients had reassignment surgery. This sampling is very small, yet is cited as some revelation and sweeping insights are drawn from this. During this same period several thousand individuals outside Hopkins program surgically transitioned. However, McHugh has hung his academic hat on this very small sample of individuals.

During an interview in the Netflix documentary, Trinidad, Stanely Biber, a former MASH surgeon who developed modern sex change surgery in the United States, said the Hopkins surgeries were crude, to put it kindly. The supposed poor post-operative social adjustment that McHugh’s claims likely reflects primitive surgical techniques, if that.

If this is McHugh’s modus agendi, his insights should across the board be taken with a heavy grain of salt.
Medical science is not a weapon to be twisted into an attack on a group that someone despises for personal reasons

« Last Edit: October 16, 2016, 11:40:33 pm by Virginia Hall »

Tags: