There are no dates on this post or sources. I can’t find that this survey exists. I confirmed Bailey is still a professor at Northwestern University.
https://psychology.northwestern.edu/people/faculty/core/profiles/michael-bailey.html
The reddit profile for the user listed has nothing.
https://www.reddit.com/user/AYAGDOS/comments/
Anyone else have any info on this? Was this a survey that already happened? That reddit user may have just been created for this survey a year ago and it’s old news.
because it’s rage bait
So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
They do research on a specific sub group of trans women.
Bailey has done lots of other research on sexuality in the homosexual and bisexual area as well.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
He never said it’s true for all female trans people.
But his evidence is real.
And it’s not really surprising because there are people who cut off body parts because of sexual kinks. There are people out there who get fixated on things and are obsessed. Sexual fixation is an incredibly strong motivator.
Many in the trans community don’t like this research because it paints a picture that they are all just a bunch of perverts. Which is something that they already have to fight against. So many see it as smearing trans people or encouraging stereotypes.
And. Of course conservatives will absolutely use these types of studies to support their opinions on trans people. Weaponize it against them.
But I want to point out some things.
- Unpleasant truths don’t make them false.
- The concern of these types of studies being used as weapons is valid. But. Conservatives will use anything to validate their opinions. Regardless if it does or doesn’t. (Scientist still have a responsibility to report their research in a way to deter it being used to harm groups).
Baily says in every single one of the papers he is in, that the most effective way to treat gender dysphoria is to help the person transition to their preferred gender. He says this many times. He says it publicly. He advocates for it.
His intention is not to harm trans people but to understand them. Does he go about it in the most sensitive way. No. But intention does count.
Now bailey was also known for doing research on bisexual men. His controversial study found that self reported bisexual men actually showed a preference for men and weren’t pure bisexual. His conclusion was that bisexuality in men was likely just homosexuality. This was met with a lot of backlash. He met with people, heard concerns. And re evaluated his study methods and has since done additional studies and showed his original was flawed. (Mostly caused by the fact that men that are bisexual but prefer women more, are more likely to be closeted bisexuals and not volunteers in his studies).
Now I have personally met the guy. He taught statistics. I also attended a seminar on his work.
I never took his sexually courses. But I had heard of his work before attending the uni he was at.
I’ve actually read the papers.
I think most people who don’t like his work, have not. Or they are mis understanding statements.
Now his person is a different story and there is plenty to criticize in his past conduct.
He never makes negative statements about trans. And the last paper I read, was by one of his grad students who was herself, a trans woman.
Transvestite culture has been around for a very long time. Trying to pretend it’s not real because you don’t like the narrative is not the way forward.
Do I like bailys personality? Not particularly. I think he’s one of those people who like to challenge things , sometimes just to see other people squirm. A bit pretentious . But I can’t deny his research has merit to it. That’s why it keeps getting published. The methodology and statistics are sound science.
As a last point. I don’t care if the reason that people want to transition is because it’s a sex thing. To me that does not change anything. Adults have a right to full autonomy over their own body. They are the only ones who get to decide such things like their gender. It’s not up to me to decide if their reasons are valid or not.
I also couldn’t care less what weird kinks other people have. As long as it’s consenting adults, it’s none of my business.
That said, I realize though that my easy acceptance of people transitioning for whatever reason won’t be shared by the general public.
But I still say though that the people who will have a problem with it, currently have a problem with transitioning, even if the narrative is “I was born in the wrong body”.
Even that won’t satisfy them as a good enough reason.
So no point in pandering to them.
I do wish someone with more class and sensitivity was doing this line of research and not Bailey. But it is what it is.
“only” a kink is such a degenerate way of attacking something that is almost exclusively sexual to begin with… don’t care. Next
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
I’m a cis woman and being a woman is very much a requirement for my sexual excitement.
Yeah a lot of people find stress to be a blocker for arousal. I imagine gender dysphoria very stressful. My first thought when reading that was how do they account for that?
So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).
Incorrect. They are both unethical.
Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn’t involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.
This wasn’t a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That’s not “controversial”, that’s outright unethical.
Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.
The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they’re helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
Even that’s not true.
When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman’s identity, when the woman is trans.
It’s taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn’t unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.
He never said it’s true for all female trans people.
He said it’s the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.
The only trans women who don’t fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls “Homosexual transexuals”. He can’t even recognise their gender… And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren’t straight should be able to transition, he doesn’t think that they’re women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.
Take a look at this, from his personal blog…
In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as “male” without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)
Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he’s not. He’s got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That’s not good science…
I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does “ethical”
Holy shit that’s horrible. Fuck.
I really wish I knew if the study authors were religious.
I have no idea if this is sloppy science with benevolent intentions (everyone makes mistakes) or religious devotion masquerading as science.
I’m leaning to the latter, or generally being an arsebum. You don’t invite Nazis at a rally.
The study authors are not religious. They are progressivs. They have repeatedly stated in their papers and in other forms that they support transitioning.
. You are making a lot of completely fabricated claims here. Whereas I referenced actual peer reviewed published studies.
Also. Every single psychology study that exists has limitations.
There are always issues. Always.
That’s the point of additional research. It aims to investigate things from multiple angles. Multiple populations.
People outside of research don’t seem to understand this.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that’s not a fair study, it’s only on Latinos "
Whereas I would reply. Yes. That’s what it says in the paper. It’s on a specific group.
Participant information is always listed in published papers. The writers always address this.
This information was not hidden or anything.You just have to read the papers and the limitations are always discussed in the conclusion section of papers.
For example if I did a study on Latino women and plastic surgery. You would say" that’s not a fair study, it’s only on Latinos "
Wouldn’t it be more like if you were doing a study on Latino women and plastic surgery and you asked the women’s parents?
Then the study was about their parents.
See. That’s the point. The way that the data is collected is part of the study.
We don’t claim that any data collection method is the one true prefer way to collect. Instead we collect data from multiple sources.
Often times the sources are chosen for the availability.
For instance. Online surveys are much easier to send out than finding individuals in real life if the thing you are researching is stigmatized or there is no register of these people.
Survey polls have many validity concerns. These are well known in psych research. No one takes them at face value.
The limitations and possible influence of survey data is always discussed in the paper.
Researchers do not ignore this fact.
autogynephilia is literally old debunked pseudoscience. some cis women get aroused from feeling sexy yet no one is questioning their gender based on that.
There is no “questioning” . The research is only intended to uncover mechanisms.
The research does not investigate the validity of being trans. None of their line of research does that.
If you see it that way, maybe actually read it instead of believing what other people say about it.
But his evidence is real.
Can you explain more about this?
Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink.
I mean that’s sexuality, isn’t it? You don’t control what your kinks are. But you phrase it like it isn’t so?
That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.
Hmm… So? Is it different than thinking of being a women? What’s the line differentiating them from other trans women?
I mean attraction has a strong link to sexuality but phrasing it as a just a kink seems dubious to make it seem like a mental health problem.
I’m just trying to understand.
Evidence gathered from scientific research studies of reports from individuals.
As for your other questions. These are addressed in the paper.
This paper is from 2007, which means its 20 years old and means a lot of additional research has since been done. Some times terminology changes in science and I should add that a lot of researchers coin their own terms for things. so that can make it tricky when reviewing literature. but in studies, the terms are always defined. so those definitions will be in this paper.
https://share.google/G3ZWsS7Y3TPh9p9k9
So I also would suggest looking at this link which shows papers that have cited this 2007 paper to see what other researchers have said about the topic and what bailey or his grad students have added to it.
There are 55 of these. some more relevant than others to the topic than others.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar?cites=15898950914960057097&as_sdt=400005&sciodt=0%2C14&hl=en
Thank you for taking the time to write this
You shouldn’t. The person your thanking is promoting bigoted Pseudoscience
I also forgot to mention Littmans more recent research on adolescent girls(biological) being trans boys.
She investigates the possibility that some are following trends and social conformity.
This has also been controversial in the trans community because some see it as trying to prove that adolescents are confused about their gender identity and don’t deserve to have any autonomy over medical decisions like hormone treatments.
Now, as I said before. I believe that people have full autonomy over their own bodies. 100%. However, I don’t extend this to children.
I think children don’t understand the risks associated with hormone therapy.
And I , who was once a teenager myself, agree that many teenagers are prone to following fads and trends of their peers.
I don’t see how anyone can deny that happens at a high rate in children and teenagers.
I also don’t deny that a teenager is capable of knowing themselves. They can. They do.
But it’s a time of development. It’s a time of exploring oneself and Identity. It’s not the right time to make permanent, life long, risky decisions, that someone who has only been alive for 15 years can actually understand what that means.
We don’t let teenagers get plastic surgery, tattoos, buy alcohol, or even lottery tickets. Because we understand that they can’t evaluate risks yet.
Are there (hormone injection) exceptions to be made for some teens. Absolutely.
Littmans research aims to discover which trans teens will continue being trans and which will flip back to their biological based gender. That way the kids who will benefit from hormones get the hormone intervention and those that it will harm, get supportive therapy instead.
It helps reduce the risk of kids taking hormone injections and permanently disrupting their sexual development because for 6 months they thought maybe they wanted to be in a different body.
I honestly would think the trans community would support this type of research because it’s going to help reduce the risk of regret transitioners.
But as with all research on trans, it is often weaponized against the community. So their concern is valid on that front.
But if we ignore this type of research or try to stop it; What could happen is we get people who start suing medical doctors and maybe have bad relationships with their parents. Because as a teen who was exploring their identity, the adults in their life quickly suggested hormones and allowed that to start when it shouldn’t have.
“I really wish my parents didn’t let me take hormones when I was 15 and depressed, and thought transitioning would fix all my problems. Now I’m sterile and don’t have the body I should have had”.
-these stories are going to be way more damaging to trans rights and more specifically, adolescents trying to take hormones that do need them.
There already are such people on social media. And the number will grow if we don’t find better ways to evaluate kids.
We have to find ways to determine which kids feel this way consistently and long term. And those following trends.
Especially young girls turning to trans guys. Because many young women see how women are devalued in our society and don’t want to be on the oppressed side.
Lots of things may influence teenagers. We need research to better help them
This argument is the one that pisses me off more than anything any adult does (and I’m around 50): I made these mistakes when I was young so I think we need to stop you from making the same mistakes. It’s so patronizing.
I often hear it from conservatives explaining why young people are voting the wrong way. I’ve heard it from the religious when explaining why young people will eventually come (back) to Christianity. I’ve heard it from anti-drug people for why marijuana should be illegal.
We certainly could use studies on this sort of thing, but this statement alone makes me suspicious of your personal views on the subject because people I’ve heard make this sort of statement are always coming from a biased position and they never realize it because it’s so foundational to their opinion on the topic.
Hormone therapy has long term consequences like permanent sterility.
I don’t think a 15 year old can understand what that risk is. I think an 18 still has limited abilities but even at that age, they have much more capability to understand these risks.
We need better tools to help identify and support kids at these times.
They are children. They have limits in their understanding of the world and long term effects and consequences of actions.
Adults should be there to help them, children do need guidance.
If adults didn’t decide things for kids, they would eat junk food for every meal, never bathe, play on their tablets 24/7 and any number of other bad behaviors.
I like doctors who take decisions on my well being to have good research and experience in the topic to give me good advice. Even when the advice is: don’t take the medicine even though you’ll feel bad for a while. I don’t think it is patronising to try and understand kids and advice them for their well being. Changing sex is not one of those little mistakes I’d like my children to make. If they want to do that I definitely don’t want that to be a mistake, and I do want the therapist following them in the process to have evidence backed research to actually aid them in the process.
Here’s what the science actually says https://whatweknow.inequality.cornell.edu/topics/lgbt-equality/what-does-the-scholarly-research-say-about-the-well-being-of-transgender-people/
What these people say? It’s not science. It’s bias, wearing a veneer of science, so that people who don’t like the idea of trans kids existing can point at something other than their own internal discomfort.
Eat shit, get your pseudo-scientific nonsense out of here
I understand that doing research can take a long time and costs money but publishing findings that partially confirm a pre-existing stigma of a vulnerable group of people, witnessing bigots leverage said research to voice oppression against said group, and wanting to do it all again is definitely in the realm of being unethical.
The pursuit of nuanced truth is a luxury that is being warped and tarnished by psychotic bigotry. Performing research for the sake of truth that might get real people harmed or killed is by definition unethical.
I have never seen or heard of a single example of a study that would be unethical due to true findings being predictably harmful to people.
These studies are not examples because their methodology doesn’t hold up to the slightest scrutiny. They are not seeking the truth in any way.
I think your first point contradicts your second.
I’m sure most people would consider it to be unethical if a study is published while knowing it is not truthful.
Also , your point is actually the argument used to make research inaccessible to the general public.
Basically it’s that the general public doesn’t understand how research is done and will apply it inappropriately and use it inappropriately.
It is why most pharmacology research is very difficult to get access too.
That and companies don’t want other companies stealing their line of work. But in part, it’s because people don’t understand the research but might think they do. And try to use the information inappropriately.
Pharmacology is probably a bad example because of the amount of legal fighting done within the pharmaceutical industry to keep people using (sometimes addicted to) their product as long as possible and to downplay any side-effects. Of course limiting resources to anyone that could oppose their sales is going to be common. So I wouldn’t say my point (which is that it is unethical to publish with no regard towards stochastic social harm on controversial topics) is the reason it’s difficult to obtain research for that industry specifically but the nature of that industry itself to keep information proprietary.
Yeah for sure. I just was trying to come up with some example. A lot of people argue that since the majority of research (including medical and pharmacology) is funded by grants from tax payers money, that the research should be publicly available.
Some argue that even the research that’s not funded by tax dollars should be available to the public in an easy free way because that promotes advances.
That’s how scihub came to exist. Which is how you can get access to any paper behind a paywall.
It’s not really theft like downloading a movie (which I actually still think is okay). Because the researcher does not get paid for that paper. And neither did the people who reviewed it.
You only are stealing from journals. And they are rich enough. They make a profit from existing. They don’t actually produce or make anything.
I will say though that I have seen research used by lay people in dangerous ways. Not just to stigmatize or harm a group but actually applied individually to cause harm.
So have you heard of tdcs ? Transcranial direct current stimulation ? Basically you put two electrodes on someone’s scalp in specific places. And you run a very low current though. Like 1amp. And in theory the electricity runs between the two electrodes and depolarize neurons in that region which will make the neurons more likely to fire.
I actually did tdcs research for my masters and I’ll tell you it leaves a lot to be desired. It’s a little bit questionable. Other forms of it might be more effective but this basic method I just described is not supported to do much.
But. People have read some studies on this. And think “I could make myself smarter by running a current through my own head”.
And there are (or used to be) diy videos on YouTube on how to do this. How much amps. How often. And these people have no idea what they are doing and are just electrocuting their own brains.
It’s insanity. And they will talk about research papers and reference parts for why they have it set up like they do. But they don’t understand the research and are doing dangerous things.
There are serious side effects like seizures, mania, and vision problems from tdcs. But these people on YouTube think that the magic brain enhancement tech is being hidden and kept from them so they will make their own.
It’s things like that , that make me think, maybe some research should be restricted from the public.
It can be tricky to conduct research that could be weaponized against a group. And I do think that researchers have a responsibility to do everything they can to make it clear, multiple times, what their study doesn’t support.
There are similar problems with research investigating , as an example, crime of black men in the U.S. Such a group is already stereotyped as having high criminal activity. If you want to do a study on black men to determine common criminal traits, you have to be very sensitive about how that data could be used. Most of this type of research is conducted by other black people, in part because of that. And secondly, because their motives are in understanding the mechanism of why certain traits are higher or lower in black Americans. And never to further stigmatize.
Because we know that environment has a huge impact on personality and behavior. This is a given understanding.
But an outsider may see the research as supporting that blank men have more aggressive tendencies just because they score a little lower than average on agreeableness or something (this is a made up example and I have no idea of such a study or finding exist).
Whereas the intention of the research is to help determine which young black men are more likely to get caught up in criminal activity , not purely for this trait but the mechanisms from the environment that promote the trait also likely promote criminal behaviors.
Or maybe it’s to uncover which combination of environment factors increase the risk.It’s trying to understand mechanisms. Not blame black men. Or say they have an innate higher tendency to be criminals.
Social research is confusing to people who don’t do it. And there is a communication barrier between scientist and lay people that I think ultimately needs to be addressed by the scientist and researchers.
But I also understand why so many get frustrated with the outrage culture online.
They try to explain. People misinterpreted their work and accuse them of things they aren’t doing. Things they never claimed. And use (to a scientist) weak arguments about how their data didn’t include 5000 participants from various backgrounds so that means it’s not valid.
It’s basically impossible to collect that kind of level of data for most research.
The methodology of any study is always clearly listed in a paper a long with the limitations of those methods.
Also, it’s more informative to collect it in multiple ways. Then you can compare those to each other.
Checked Alejandra Caraballo, she is apparently a civil rights attorney and pro-queer. What she says should indeed be correct.
Bailey also is associated with far-right idiots, so yeah. Littman also hasn’t studied trans people before and based her study on anecdotal experience rather than actual in-depth research; and she didn’t survey the actual trans people either about their experiences, and pathologised it.
Verdict, yeah spread the word among fellow queers to not partake in that study, and don’t tell others who might be sympathetic to fascists.
Littman’s the one who went to a terf-parent forum, and polled the people there about whether or not they thought that their kids “becoming” trans was a sudden thing or not, right?
Because obviously rapid onset gender dysphoria makes more sense than people not sharing their experiences with their hateful parents.
Yep, that’s correct.
Ironically I myself might fall under the group she allegedly thinks exists. But a critical part she (probably intentionally) misses, is that I didn’t “turn” trans because of online communities. People don’t “turn” trans, but explore their identities and figure it out, it’s a long process. The community merely helped me in figuring out what all my things together were. And that’s why the group she invented on the spot, doesn’t exist.
Before exposure to more queer stuff, I already knew I didn’t like having body hair, and long for having a womb, and so on… but I didn’t have a “name” for those together. I only knew I felt meh in my body and didn’t really feel ‘at home’. When I finally started to figure it out, it gradually ‘clicked’ and helped me!
To take a parallel. Just because formal English doesn’t distinguish “thou” and “you” anymore*, it doesn’t mean that English speakers don’t understand the concept of multiple people.
* Yeah, I know of ‘ye, you lot, tha, yinz, (all) y’all’, etc., shuttup shuttup ඞ. Bear with me for a second.
Or like how spoken Hungarian, Chinese, and Estonian do not distinguish gendered pronouns, instead having a neutral one. That doesn’t mean those people don’t know what a man, woman, or enby is.
And to hit the nail in the coffin even more. If a language like Russian distinguishes ‘blue’ and ‘breen’ (blue-green) as standalone colours in their own right, does that mean they can distinguish them and anglophones can’t?
No. People are familiar with them. It’s just that not all know the word for the concept. Knowing the concept-word helps in understanding, though, and so it’s time for a nice xkcd (explanation included for the lazy).
I don’t care if I’ve ranted too much, get a nice cookie here and enjoy. 🍪
guy who’s really into greasing his hair and listening to elvis, discovers elvis impersonators and “suddenly” starts wanting to impersonate elvis.
we really have to put a stop to this rampant presleyism, it’s harming our children
He ain’t nothing but a hound dog!
Is what the Fallout TV show did to The Kings, Trans erasure?
Mild /s
It had some Kings, they’d just become feral ghouls. It was effectively one guy’s Elvis fan club, so having any identifiable members decades later would be a surprise.
The fact that they are feral ghouls, and not keeping the peace in freeside is what I was referring to. I’m pissed that Todd Howard seems to be trying to negate every Fallout game that he didn’t work on, ya know, the good ones.
The anti trans crowd aren’t unequipped to describe what they are seeing. They aren’t interested in the journey so they don’t look at the map. They don’t see the inner journey of doubt, realization, to empowering actualization.
To them a person just decides they are going to be someone new and it becomes taboo to ever reference the person they knew. They are uncurious about what happened to that person and don’t know that what looks like a decision is a realization. No one walks them through the nightmare period of endless self doubt and denial. They have no clue about any part of the struggle.
The real heart break is that trans art is amazing at sharing the experience but the anti trans folks are uncurious and siloed in their media consumption so they don’t explore anything they don’t know.
I’m probably an egg (by which I mean I’m pretty sure I’m trans and would love to take a pill right now to make it so that I had always been a dude, but I don’t know that I’d take one that turned me into a man now, because I don’t know if it’s worth it to explain it to everyone. I also don’t think I’m actually experiencing dysphoria, just aware that I’m probably a man. I think that counts as an egg for some people, trans and closeted for others, and probably cis [lol] for transmedicalists).
If I ever do come out, it’s probably going to seem sudden as fuck to a bunch of people, because I’ve already thought about it for years, so I’ll have everything planned out as efficiently as possible and ready to go the second I decide to transition. I’ll come out to people after I’ve started hormones and right before it becomes noticeable, which I’ll time to coincide with a top surgery (my mother died young of breast cancer that was diagnosed when she was within a few years of my age, and I’m medically eligible for a full mastectomy). That might be wishful thinking, but at least from here, I think I can be patient about it.
The important indicator imo isn’t dysphoria per se, but euphoria. If you for example were to feel fine either way but feel happier being a guy, then that’s a good one.
The way I came out was basically figure out how certain I was of it, then tell to my most trusted people, then spread outward.
Edit: you also don’t have the obligation to explain it to anyone. Just as nobody is owed to explain to others that they’re cis, so too is nobody owed to explain their transhood. It does help to communicate, though, but think about it at your own pace.
Only you yourself can decide for yourself who you are. Experiment, try out, do what helps. Whatever you feel best, be that guy-, gal-, enbyhood or whatever else, it’s all valid. Feel free to ask me anything!
Yeah it would have been easy for my parents to think it came on suddenly, hell I had a beard when I came out. I was also heavily involved in trans forums to the point my username was well known to the people there every day, I had been out to my friends for nearly a year, I’d known I wasn’t cis for over two years, and I’d been struggling with dysphoria and the desire to be a girl/woman my entire life. It’s just that I’d tried to go all in on masculinity in the hopes it would help and it didn’t
That is dysphoria. You don’t need to physically hate the body your in, just want to be in a different one.
And likewise your reasons for not wanting to transition aren’t based on not being trans but on social stigma and having to deal with it.
Best way I heard it is that no cis person is out there giving the time of thought to this subject.
Luckily if you’re going FTM there’s less issue with age, as you can develop a masculine presentation later in life via HRT. Take the time you need to find yourself.
Tangentially related, but I find it weird how in Chinese written pronouns include gender, but since they sound the same the information is lost in speech
That’s actually a modern invention. Originally, 他 (they, sg.) was the only one used, but then someone added 她 for the literal sole purpose of translating western European works – as in many of those languages there, it’s all gendered.
Try to translate this for example:
“He wants a cookie, and she wants a mango.”If translated literally-ish, you’d write:
他有饼干和他有芒果, which yields “They want a cookie, and they want a mango”. It’s ambiguous.So if one really wanted that, why (in my view) not do it as: “他有饼干和那女的有芒果”? That meaning, “They want a cookie, and that gal wants a mango.” And then later when referring to only the gal in an unambiguous context, just use 他 anyways.
I feel like it’d be funnier if 男 ”man" was incorporated into the original pronoun, then you could have 也 with either 亻(that then yields 他), or with 男 (男也) or with 女 (她). And then you only use the male and female ones if you explicitly want to be so annoyingly gendery.
Then we can use the neutral pronoun for all purposes. Or, y’know, just use the neutral pronoun as originally done. Which still can be done, it’s just dated.
Thanks for sharing, that was interesting to learn, also yeah they really missed a chance to make a separate 男也 character
Actually, now that I recall, there’s actually one.
It’s U+323BF, looks like which is similar to 馳. See here for more.
The lower one is also used online.
It doesn’t render in the font I’m using, seems to be too far into extended unicode, but that’s still cool, thanks
At this point any US org or system gathering information on non-cis people might be feeding into Palantir’s systems for repression use.
Is Palantir a US government mass surveillance thing? If so, then congrats to whoever named the thing Palantir…
Private US corp. Used by various gov’ts around the world, the US included. It’s how gov’ts can both “not spy on their citizens” while end up having the ability to do so and use the info - by buying it from a private corpo.
Not just US, most governments, even the Swedish police.
Oh wow, just found this really interesting article about the Swiss perspective on the thing. Oh how very Switzerland…
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/war-peace/why-palantir-is-becoming-a-risky-bet-for-switzerland/90666335
It’s Peter Theil. Where have you been?
In Switzerland
You’re still affected.
https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/war-peace/why-palantir-is-becoming-a-risky-bet-for-switzerland/90666335
Zurich serves as a hub for US tech company Palantir’s business relations.
Yeah, kinda. They pay taxes here I guess. Thing is, many morally dubious big tech companies have set up shop here (and also the local government annoyingly kinda sucks up to them), but there are more pressing things and Palantir in particular hasn’t become a common topic of conversation here.
TIL the company is very aptly named:
The stones were an unreliable guide to action, since what was not shown could be more important than what was selectively presented
Yup, they stole from Tolkien’s works. Much like Morgoth, they have no creativity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palantir_Technologies
Palantir Technologies Inc. is an American publicly traded company that develops data integration and analytics platforms enabling government agencies, militaries, and corporations to combine and analyze data from multiple sources. Its flagship products—Gotham (for intelligence and defense) and Foundry (for commercial and civil use)—connect previously siloed databases to support intelligence operations, counterterrorism analysis, law enforcement, and enterprise analytics.
At a minimum, someone with really bad judgement, who cares more about making headlines than doing high-quality research, and who shouldn’t be trusted to treat the subjects of this study with respect.
Bailey was the Northwestern professor who had a live demo of a reciprocating sex toy, put on by a volunteer and her partner. It was optional to attend the demo, students were over 18 and allegedly informed on what they were going to see.
He’s also been repeatedly called out for not properly informing participants in his studies. One accusation of sleeping with one of his research subjects. And toed the ethics line on writing evaluation letters for candidates of sex assignment surgery when he didn’t hold a license.
His wikipedia article links to sources.
The first smell test for any survey is how would they possibly control for the non-response rate?
Putting out a billboard to ask something like “what’s kind of makeup should a cracked egg try first” will get a bunch of recommendations and advertisment copy. But it wouldn’t tell you much about how many males wearing makeup are trans, enby, drag, or just wearing a costume. And noting at all about how many trans girls even try makeup at all.
“Tell me your responses about how much HRT sucks” would, similarly, get you a dataset that’s highly distorted.
I feel like something similar has been going on a few years ago as well (or maybe it’s an old post?)
Yeah confirmed by the fact they call it “gender dysphoria” .
Wait, I read about dysphoria 10 times a day on the fedi, how is it a TERF dog whistle?
It is a valid term used by trans people to describe their own feelings (see the gender dysphoria bible for example). The other person must have gotten something mixed up…
What they’re getting at is they don’t ask for people who are trans, they ask for people “navigating gender dysphoria”.
It’s like someone using “females” instead of women.
When you choose that framing, it’s often a sign of something deeper at play…
Ah yes, now I get it! Thanks :)
