Her PHD is in paraphilias and hypersexuality. I don't doubt that it was fine work and she defended it properly. But that's not what I'm questioning. If she's quoting dumb ass papers that were transparently designed to get the results required I'm gonna point that out.
Peterson, Harris, etc....
- Thread starter prath92
- Start date
Revealed at Last! Inside the Kibbutz Where Bernie Sanders Lived and Learned Socialism
Naomi ZeveloffFeb 4, 2016
Read more: https://forward.com/news/israel/332...bbutz-where-bernie-sanders-lived-and-learned/
And as you know, all leftists despise Bernie.
Do you think it’s possible that someone with a PhD in paraphilias and hypersexuality might be more familiar with - and better able to critically appraise - the literature on gender dysphoria than your good self?
The article Silva posted was co-signed by a few people:
who seem to have PhDs or advanced degrees in related fields.
The tweet suggests that she believes her position is being silenced - that automatically means she's admitting that it isn't the mainstream position in the research community.
Slightly related: did you see the replies to her on the tweet?
I will quote them.
It sure looks like her fans have been critically reading all sides of the academic debate
Is the video worth watching? How wide ranging a term is gender dysphoria anyway? Like does that cover tom boys and effeminate guys, or is it more specific to people who've taken medical steps to intervene with their gender? 40% doesn't sound that small a number really (depending on what exactly they're talking about)
To be fair Pogue, her PhD has nothing to do with her questioning. If I conduct a study where I ask you if you're a.) or b.) and you have never had any reason to believe there might be a c.) then I can't claim to have any concrete results on option c.) that was never presented to you. It's fairly obvious that you'd select either option a or b. And you wouldn't need a PhD in whatever field I might have one in to point that out, it's just common sense.
Not to mention, whilst a person with a PhD doesn't necessarily mean they're right on everything. Otherwise peers would never disagree with each other. There's a molecular biologist working as a tenured professor at the University of Berkeley who believes that HIV is harmless and doesn't cause AIDS.
evidently not
No.
It's Dave Rubin. He could be interviewing Obama and I'd avoid it.
I'm not a Rubin fan, but this one was interesting.
I read some of the youtube comments. Full of morons who seem confused about whether they’re more besotted with her research or her looks. Youtube/twitter comments tell us nothing, other than the world is full of idiots.
As I said, the research is obviously open to criticism. That’s the nature of research. And with politically charged issues like this people are more critical of research that contradicts their prior agendas and less critical of research that supports it. Of course, I’m sure she’s bringing her own biases to the table, just like they are. I definitely think there’s a movement to stifle research/opinions that challenge the progressive orthodoxy in this field (the “gay face” hysteria she mentions being a good example) so the fact she feels she’s being silenced doesn’t necessarily mean she’s been conned by bad science.
Never watched one of his videos before. This one’s ok. Presumably because he doesn’t do much talking?
His videos usually promote his intellectual dark web schtick in some way...where he spends time bigging up free speech and the like. This one actually had a great guest and Rubin himself was oddly grounded in his questioning which made for a good video.
I'm reading a little more about the survey. Firstly, it was purely an internet survey of parents, with children never included. I agree that there are limitations with all studies but if this is the general standard god help us.
Much more alarming:
This doesn't seem like honest research.
FYI: an anti-trans strain of feminism on reddit is called GenderCritical and they call themselves 4th wave feminists IIRC.
Much more alarming:
This doesn't seem like honest research.
FYI: an anti-trans strain of feminism on reddit is called GenderCritical and they call themselves 4th wave feminists IIRC.
good news everyone I did a survey of trans people on ohmygodilovelifeeverythingisamazing.com and everything went great for them, solved it now give me all the awards
Is that the TERF thing?
Yes, r/gendercritical is the TERF hangout on reddit.
Don't use that word though, they've decided that it's a slur on par with the n-word or something.
Think the study raises an interesting point, but the 60-90% estimate seems extremely broad. Some further research in to the source also leaves me less than convinced.
It shouldn't be taboo to talk about though, doubly so when it's about children.
It shouldn't be taboo to talk about though, doubly so when it's about children.
I think we’re talking at cross purposes here. Why do you keep referring to “the study”? The 60-90% figures that she mentions in the interview above have nothing to do with that study (the one that @Silva decided he was an expert on). They’re based on many different pieces of research, apparently mainly carried out in Denmark and Canada. None of which I’ve read and none of which are discussed in any kind of detail in this thread or the article linked to above.
I've no intention of digging out the original peer-reviewed articles but they obviously exist and they're obviously numerous. If you click through the article above the closest I can find to any kind of disagreement with is a blog/video from someone who has "methodological questions" about these data but nonetheless come to the following conclusions:
As you can see, the number 1 conclusion is 100% in agreement with what Deborah Soh claims in the video above. The majority of gender nonconforming children are not gender dysphoric adolescents or adults (she said 60-90%, I haven't seen the research so have to take her word for this). So it's entirely reasonable to be worried about the relatively recent trend for some gender noncomforming children to end up on puberty blockers inappropriately, before they reach adolescence. And let's not forget these are conclusions from someone that, more than likely, has an ideological agenda that opposes the research findings!
Gender noncomforming and gender dysphoria are different things, of course gender noncomforming children won't all grow up to be trans - and they're not being diagnosed with dysphoria as frequently as in the past. That's one of the issues with the research she's quoting pogue. They're counting children who aren't trans and no psychologist will diagnose such. Unless the psychologist is still using outdated questions from the 80s, in which case who let Jordan Peterson near children?
They're also not being given things like puberty blockers unless the psychologists, parents and the child are extremely sure it's the right thing. And by the stage where they might get puberty blockers the chances of a dysphoria diagnoses being correct reach near 100% (adolescents are almost never misdiagnosed as small children are).
They're also not being given things like puberty blockers unless the psychologists, parents and the child are extremely sure it's the right thing. And by the stage where they might get puberty blockers the chances of a dysphoria diagnoses being correct reach near 100% (adolescents are almost never misdiagnosed as small children are).
Last edited:
Aside from all else, I think this is definitely a reasonable worry and something that, until much more in depth scientific studies, should not be allowed without until someone is an adult.
Aren't puberty blockers often used to give kids some extra time to live as their preferred gender, to see if transitioning is what they really want? Since puberty is irreversible and all that?
That's correct.
Some people raise the question whether this can lead to stunting someone's development. Ofcourse with this subject it's always hard to judge whether the concern is genuine, or if said critics have a different agenda. But it's definitely worth examining thoroughly imo.
Uh kinda. They're also given to children who start puberty too early just so they don't have tits or a beard at 9 years old. And used in some other unrelated treatments. For trans adolescents that is one of the uses, they're also great for mental health and they also make it easier to transition because you didn't develop a lot of the sex characteristics you would have during puberty. It has a very high success rate because by the time you get them the chance of misdiagnosis is very low.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation...improve-mental-health-transgender-adolescents
Last edited:
Also known as concern trolling or "just asking questions" (JAQing off). There are a lot of genuine challenges here, but many people are decidedly not arguing in good faith.
Basically, what Dave Rubin based his career on.
Part 2 of the Soh interview
Such intellect, much wow.
Wasn't Alex Jones flogging stuff like this too?
All of the right wing online talk show/radio hosts flog these snake oils.
Shapiro’s only difference with the likes of Jones or Limbaugh is an Ivy League degree.
Alex Jones is the absolute pro at selling stupid shit. He propagated the use of the term "soyboy" (an effeminate male who eats vegetables and soy products and has low testosterone - not a real thing based on reality) to get his fans to buy testosterone boosting pills... which were almost entirely made out of soy. Genius.
Have they all been on Joe Rogan? You’d have to wonder if he told them about the easy money he makes selling “nutraceuticals” to the gullible.
Anyone listened to the Coleman Hughes interview on the Sam Harris podcast? He’s a smart cookie. Eerily similar way of thinking/speaking to Harris too.
Been reading a few of his articles. Hard to believe he's only in his 2nd year at Columbia
He's very, very impressive for his age.
About the soy stuff: a series of (mostly just talking) videos that get funnier with each step, focusing on Infowars' star in the UK: Paul Joseph Watson