Its a little worrying that a lot of advocates demonize detrans and often will write off people who went through that process as if they didn't experience it firsthand.
I get that, but there are people who regret ANY elective surgery. For instance, there are women who regret having breast enhancement surgery and have actually DIED from it. Should we outlaw it? The question is, what should we actually DO about it? This seems akin to interviewing someone who has researched women who regret their enhancements. Are there people who regret it? Of course. But, what’s the point? What should we, as a society do? If nothing, then this is a waste of time (hence why only watched 37 seconds of this video).
@@melbied6215 Adults vs kids getting the chop is the issue. As a fat old man who identifies as an armchair female medical expert, because I saw a plastic womanakin in a shop window, my opinion is worth 2 ounces of dog turd. Watch the entire original if interested.
@melbied6215 If the topic was being presented as an optional cosmetic procedure I fully agree. It's not, but I think if it was that would solve most discussion on the topic and further discussion would just devolve into the usual risky cosmetic procedure problems of physicians snake-oiling
@@karlwhite2733 So basically refusing to use certain pronouns is transphobic? That’s stupid. That’s craziness. Just because I refuse to lie to someone about their sex doesn’t mean they don’t have a right to their own feelings. I can respect their feelings- but I am not obligated to participate in someone else’s delusion. I don’t have to worry about pronouns- I can call someone by their name. That shouldn’t be a problem, and shouldn’t be a threat to someone like you. If I were truly transphobic, I wouldn’t even talk to a trans person.
Her husband is Colin Wright, if I’m not mistaken? He is an evolutionary biologist who is gender critical (he has critiqued Forrest Valkai at the Atheist Experience on the trans issue).
I've been trans since I was a kid in the 90s. Being trans is not a belief or an ideology, it just is another expression of this experience we call life. We've always been around, only difference is now we have the medical advancements to facilitate physical transition. So... What is such an anathema... that people support trans rights? Recently in my state there was a concerted effort to prohibit the use of the "trans panic" defense in criminal cases. This was after our friend was murdered in an act of transphobic violence last year. This bill was passed and now after we are assaulted or murdered, at least our dignity will be a little more protected in a court of law... Our candlelight vigils had to be cancelled due to the amount of threats against our support group after a local news station doxxed our group and host. The trans rights I fight for includes us being able to grieve.
The problem is that "gender" ideology uses virtually identical methods, to those which make more traditional religions like Christianity or Islam extremely hard to walk away from, despite sharing "gender" ideology's 100% absence of evidence. -Your morality, and worth as a human being DEPENDS on you retaining your belief in god/sex-independent "genders"; Anyone who rejects your belief system is automatically, BY DEFINITION an "immoral sinner" who "just hates god, and wants to sin"/"a bigoted transphobe" who "just hates trans people". Basically it's a PART of the belief, that rejecting the belief = "immorality/bigotry". -It's completely unfalsifiable. And believers will always work from the assumption that you need to DIS-prove the unfalsifiable, rather than recognise that they ALREADY ACCEPTED a huge stack of beliefs, with no basis evidence. -Words get re-defined in ideologically-motivated ways, and believers internalise these new definitions, in ways that change how they see the world. eg, The Creationist idea of biblical "kinds" of animals. Or "micro vs macro-evolution". Or believers removing any evidence-based criteria from the definition of "woman" and "man". Or the conceptualization of "gender" as a thing that's somehow independent of evidence-based sex. Or more recently, we're even seeing a very ideologically-driven push to remove ALL objective, evidence-based criteria from the definitions of "sex", "male" and "female". -The 100% absence of empirical evidence gets spun into being "a feature, not a bug"; Traditional religions do this, via the idea of "faith", making it a GOOD THING to believe claims without evidence. "Gender" ideology calls this "self-ID", and leverages the idea that "how do YOU know, what the internal 'gender' of this person is?", as if the total absence of evidence somehow HELPS the idea of faith-based, self-declared "genders", rather than being the reason to REJECT the evidence-free claim. Belief in sex-independent "genders" (whether in trans-IDing people themselves, or in """cis""" believers) is just like traditional religions; No amount of rationality or evidence can talk a person out of a belief, that they didn't get INTO for rational, evidence-based reasons. Even with a 100% absence of empirical evidence, an unfalsifiable belief, which includes the idea that "Belief = good and moral. Non-belief = immoral/hateful bigotry", can be easy to fall into, and a very hard thing to get out of. The believer needs to have some internal shift of THEIR OWN, before they're able to make an impartial, rational examination of their beliefs...
Is it really identical when trans-affirming people are just adjusting their models of sex and gender to reflect reality? What are we supposed to do about our understanding of sex and gender when confronted with the fact that some people have gender identities which do not align with their sex and that their mental health outcomes are consistently improved with transition (whether social or medical)? Whatever scientific theory we use to analyze and engage with the phenomena we describe as sex and gender should conform to reality, and a strict binary view which insists that the two must always correlate simply does not match reality. I don't see how it's valid to equivocate unfalsifiable claims of a deity's existence and the straightforward interpretation of the facts which justifies accepting trans people and trans healthcare as valid and good.
@@stormburn1because men cannot become women, and vice versa. Your argument is that we should lie for someone's comfort, and maybe we should, I'm not arguing against accepting a trans person's ID, BUT that's not the discussion were having, its whether or not it's TRUE and it patently isn't true, just as much as a persons schizophrenic voices aren't real but its REAL to them. Just because a person feels something strongly and believes it with their whole heart does not make it reality. If someone feels like their the wrong sex, it doesn't mean they are. Theirs a similar disorder where people feel like their own limb isn't theirs and it's been proven amputating that limb leads to less psychological distress much like you pointed out with transition surgery, so it is extremely similar in both its effects, solutions and outcomes it's just not politicized so saying the arm is theirs even though they don't believe that isn't controversial it's just a fact. They should have the right to do whatever they want with their body if their an adult but their not the opposite sex or a made up one because they don't "feel" a certain way.
@@stormburn1 Yes it does, because you do not know what sex vs gender is, and even if you were right in your assumptions the original commenter already addressed this point when he spoke about ideological driven definitions. Gender has never been used the way you're using the word until John Money and his gender theory research. But that's beside the point, the point is that you do not know what gender is and my usage of the word sex is correct. Here is how you think it works which is wrong Sex = male/female Gender = man/woman This isn't true. Sex (male/female) is the sex of all organisms. Man/woman (also sex) is the same thing as male/female but it's specific to humans instead of all organisms. This has ALWAYS been what man and woman meant, this has always been the difference between male/man and female/woman, man and woman are sex based biological words, the words man and woman are not social constructs, and are not "gender" if that's how you define gender. Here is the definition of Woman: An adult human female So yes I used the correct word, a trans-woman would not be a woman because they are not an adult human female, same thing with men.
@@SFO195 “the words man and woman are not social constructs” Lots of wrong stuff in your comment, but saying words aren’t social constructs takes the cake.
2/3 of kids grow over Gdysphoria which is grow up pains related. Those who do not are stuck in it. It is likely psychosomatic. I think it is likely that such Tclinic approach with lots of medicine confuses the body and helps getting rid of that pain. But i also think it is a rather primitive ''cure''. Experimenting on kids with problems that are partly psychological that is just very bad.
I notice she didn't exactly answer Doug's question. He asked about de-transitioners' beliefs, and she answered what they'd been told by doctors. Did I hear that right?
I also noticed that her quoted study showing "30% discontinue hormone treatment" is not at all the same as regretting transition. Seems irrelevant, actually. Is she mentioning it because 30% sounds more scary?
I wonder if hormone treatment includes hormone blockers. Because isn't the whole point of hormone blockers to give someone more time to assess themselves before they make more permanent decisions. If that's the case then it would make sense to have a relatively high desistence rate after hormone blockers.
Can data be added why some choose to contiune on their transition like blair white? She said it was truama that lead her down that path and it was the best for her. Can someone pls explain this.
I suspect sunk cost is a huge factor, in many cases. There's a growing group, seperate from "detransitioners", who say they regret transition, yet CONTINUE "living as the opposite sex", generally because, due to the extent of surgery/exogenous hormones they've had, they feel it's easier maintaining their current identity, than going back to identifying as their actual sex- But despite this, they wish they'd never "transitioned" in the first place (Corinna Cohn is probably the best-known example. But there's also several ftm's, who's names I can't recall; The "transman" who Matt Walsh interviewed in "What is a woman", and another older ftm who has a podcast). Or there's another fairly well-known person who goes by "Shapeshifter", who I think Blair has interviewed; He was an mtf who had "bottom surgery" (which had horrific complications, as it typically does), as well as breast implants, and many years on estrogen. He calls himself a "detransitioner" now, uses male bathrooms, but still basically "presents female"- Wears dresses and make-up, and probably "passes" as female better than most "transwomen"... But he deeply regrets ever "transitioning". He just feels like all the hormones/surgery have basically commited him to looking that way/"presenting female". So while I won't put words in Blair's mouth, I think there's plenty of evidence that once you've significantly altered your body, it can be VERY hard to go back to accepting your sex. And this would be even harder for someone like Blair, who has this whole career and huge social media following, based on him being "a woman", and who's in a long-term relationship, with a man who considers himself to be "straight"
I don't get the point of the question. Whatever being trans is, of course it can be characterized as a belief that you _are_ that thing, and that's either true or false. I see 3 options: A person who detransitions could have falsely believed they were trans before, they could've actually been trans at the time and then stopped being trans later, or they were/are trans and now they falsely believe they weren't/aren't. Could someone believe they have depression and be wrong? I'd have to say it's possible. What's the implication? The only one I can see is trying to say that _all_ people who believe they're trans are wrong, and thus trans isn't a real thing you can be. This seems as weird as saying that all people who believe they have depression are wrong, and thus depression isn't a real thing. People being mistaken about a real thing makes enough sense, but if there's no real instances of people being trans, it makes way less sense that it would even be an idea in the first place, for people to then be confused about
Never heard of Christina Buttons before. Looking up her CV surely there are better people to get info from on this subject, aren't there Doug?? I have no hate for conservatives but I'm gonna be skeptical of anyone who has worked for the Daily Wire. Is Doug going down the path of right wing grift?? I sincerely hope not...😢
I happened to be surfing RU-vid, saw Peter Boghossian was on live with an "Ask me Anything". Heard Christina talk. Hopped on and asked the question. I don't care if someone is from MSNBC, Foxnews, or is a self described Nazi. If I have a question I'll ask it. Your comment makes me be skeptical of your IQ.
@PineCreekDoug Ah, fair enough. I thought maybe you asked her on your program. I have no issue talking with anyone but promoting and/or platforming can become problematic IMHO. These youtube shorts aren't always clear 🤷♂️ But I welcome your questioning of my IQ 😂 Keep asking those questions Doug! 😘
@@PineCreekDoug How can someone questioning the ethics of your quest show they have a skeptical IQ? We all should know the source of information, right?
@@KeithCooper-Albuquerque I was skeptical of his IQ because he made the genetic fallacy (or at least implied it). And in regards to the source of information, she is the source! She is talking about her own research!
