Aww you deleted Kat's comments. I was looking forward to reading those. This is strangely high-effort for rebutting someone who really doesn't have that big of an audience anyways. As for the subject itself, trans people obviously exist in the same sense that "goth" people or "punk" people exist, as a self-appointed identity. What people mean when they say "trans doesn't exist" is simply that men can't be women and vice versa.
as I mentioned elsewhere, this happened due to a bug in 24 hour block UI/popup. It closed before I could do anything about it, then the damage was done. I cannot restore all the comments, though I suppose I could to and copy/paste them all back in. But I am not putting that time and effort into. Besides, if you wait a day or so, she will just spam it all back there again.
Another great master class of an article on how to thwart anti-trans rhetoric. I am in awe of your abilities and endurance, PITT! Kat routinely relies on intellectually shoddy tactics and you make it look effortless the way you disarm every last one. Also, I know it's not actually effortless, so you deserve Tom's of recognition for the time and commitment you dedicate to this project. Thank you.
Once again, I can't thank you enough for your incredibly kind and supportive words. Truly, it means the world to me to know that my work resonates with you, and I'm deeply grateful for the time you took to share your thoughts! The comments, discussion, and engagement is wonderful and motivating, a buoy in the torrent.
Ah, the demanding of questions begins again! We are shaking in our boots....
Logical Fallacies:
- Begging the Question: Assumes "trans doesn't exist" to prove trans doesn't exist
- False Premise: Claims no one can define terms when definitions have been provided
- Appeal to Ridicule: Using "LOL" to dismiss substantive analysis
- Red Herring: Focusing on demanding definitions rather than engaging with presented evidence
- Ad Hominem: Dismissing detailed analysis as "word salad"
- Vague Threat: "You guys are in trouble" without substantiation
Key Patterns:
- Sealioning: Repeatedly demanding definitions while ignoring provided answers
- Moving Goalposts: When presented with evidence, shifts to demanding definitions
- Projection: Claims others are "running away" while avoiding engagement with actual content
- False Victory: Claims triumph ("none of you can answer") while ignoring existing answers, or that the question was simply ignored.
The response demonstrates a common rhetorical tactic:
1. Ignore substantive content
2. Demand oversimplified definitions
3. Reject any nuanced answers as "word salad"
4. Declare victory when complex topics aren't reduced to soundbites
This perfectly illustrates why detailed analysis is necessary - the attempt to reduce complex human biology and identity to simplistic definitions is precisely what the article addresses. The defensive response and vague threats suggest the analysis hit close to home.
The irony is that this response validates the article's points about rhetorical tactics used to avoid engaging with evidence and research.
I haven't read the whole article yet, but felt compelled to comment on this:
"What we cannot say is precisely what causes it, why it happens, and where we need to look for a definitive answer. This is emerging research. Futhermore, there is a valid criticism in engaging in these studies. In the paper 'After the trans brain: a critique of the neurobiological accounts of embodied trans* identities' by Maite Arraiza Zabalegui, the main point seems to be that while biological factors may play a role, they are just one aspect of a complex, dynamic process that also involves social, cultural, and individual experiences throughout life."
This brought to mind for me one of the ongoing debates among Autistics, in which we discuss the hazards of research that focuses on prenatal processes/causes of autism. (I'm not going to say what my position on this is, because I don't want to derail the topic of this article, and since I am agender, it's not my place to express an opinion as it regards trans people, since it doesn't impact me directly; I doubt the research and politics of all this will ever concern itself much with the absence of gender, and will therefore limit its scope to those who experience gender in some way). But I think the debate itself is important. On one hand, research might be helpful in terms of a better understanding of health-related aspects of autism, and inspire ideas about ways to better identify the support needs immediately, from birth. Also, there are some Autistic people in the target group who would, given the choice, have preferred to have been born allistic. On the other hand, there is a very high potential for this kind of research to be used to either identify autism prenatally and give the parent the choice to abort, or to "fix" the developing fetus so that they develop allistically instead of autistically. There are many Autistics who consider these likely eventualities to be genocidal, or eugenicist. I think these concerns apply equally to trans people. This is a highly emotional subject for most people, and so it has high potential for conflict if it's not addressed mindfully and with a LOT of empathy and compassion. And it definitely should be addressed by trans people (if it's not already) rather than letting cis researches, doctors, and politicians set the framing and the narrative.
We are still making new discoveries in the field of genetics and the human brain is still an unexplored galaxy. Anyone who makes the mistake of thinking that their high school biology class provided the understanding of science that they need to counter our narrative is woefully ignorant.
I see. "Gender" has nothing to do with biology, but you can cite the brain as biological organ as proof for males who are actually females since they have ladybrains, even though they commit crime at the same rate as plain old males.
Which men are given brain scans before they're allowed to play women's sports?
How are these men identified in the first place?
Do any of them have female hearts and kidneys, or just brains?
Do any of you idiots even listen to yourselves?
It's so complicated, yet the Taliban figures out who to keep out of school and dogs know how to identify and avoid men.
You're dumber than terrorists and dogs. Have shame.
I see the parallelism here, and assuming we are on the same page, I agree.
This is why, as I noted in the article, critiques like Maite Arraiza Zabalegui's are important. They remind us that while biological factors may play a role, they are just one part of the complex influences that shape our identities. Social, cultural, and individual experiences are equally important, and any research or discussion of trans identities should take a holistic view.
I believe the goal of any such inquiry should be to improve the lives of trans people, and not for any other purpose. Trans people are not a problem to be solved, but a natural part of human diversity to be understood and celebrated.
Two studies came out this month on the role that RNA plays in determining biodiversity. Also in the "seesaw" debate between nurture vs. nature we still don't seam to remember that the brain is not just part of the nurture side in terms of our experiences but is also a huge part of the nature side. We know a lot about the psychology of the brain but not much about it's biology. In-vitro chemistry contributes a lot to brain development. That chemistry during pregnancy is influenced by numerous conditions inside and outside the womb. Perhaps the psychology of the mother even plays a role in our brain development before we are born.
Yes! The guiding motivation must be about improving life for the group being researched. That being said, one of the reasons this is such a hot debate amongst Autistics is because we have been made the fodder for a system ravaged by capitalism, and we've learned the hard way that there's always someone ready to make a buck off of us without any regard for the negative impact that causes for us. While there doesn't currently appear to be a substantial level of grift involved with trans healthcare, it is inevitable that at some point, the grifters will find their way in, so it's important to be vigilant to that possibility and be ready to stop them in their tracks whenever possible. That's why I feel it's important, as a community, for trans people to engage in this discussion with each other, rather than as a reactive defense if/when capitalist interests attempt to assert themselves into the discussion.
Same old crap. Kat learned absolutely nothing from reading all that research, despite it being rganized specifically to address their own confusion on the topic.
They really take wilful ignorance to new heights. I wonder what is really going on here, psychologically. What makes them incapable of learning anything new about this? Do you think it's their own gender confusuion bubbling up and their fear of it makes them lash out?
Or is it just as simple as Kat enjoying inflicting pain on the people suffering the most in our society?
Can't wait til we start doing research on these people with pathological levels of bigotry and stubborn ignorance.
There is no real research to read here. I learned more from reading "research" from Purdue Pharma insisting that Oxycontin didn't cause addiction.
There is no such thing as "gender confusion."
It doesn't exist.
I'm a woman, which is an adult human female. My hobbies, hairstyle, clothes, etc. do not change that, and I don't have to conform to any stereotypes or norms at all.
I never have. If I shaved my head, I would still be a woman.
If the girls in Afghanistan tried to "identify" out of being girls, men would beat them down.
Does that make you ashamed of your ignorant behavior? When you realize what women continue to suffer globally due to their sex?
My sex is unchangeable. It doesn't matter how hard you REEE about this.
LOL "Research"
You sub-80 IQ drooling dolts can't even tell me what a woman is or what a man is.
I think the reason that they double down on their position and refuse to learn anything new or acknowledge any new information on the subject as much to do with cognitive dissonance.
oh no doubt - I have seen that breakdown in person, when it finally reaches a point where they can no longer deal with the two opposing views. The end result was not pretty, and ultimately the blame was laid elsewhere. I was sad, because when that happens, that can be such a wonderful breakthrough and an opportunity for personal growth.
No, sadly not. Instead I was blamed for pointing out the fact that their principles and values were both in conflict with each other, and their actions. They could not let it go, raged, spiraled out, and instead of settling on the facts of the matter and just accepting that things are what they are, they doubled-down and decided it was my fault for bringing it up and putting them through all of that.
That said, more often I see the opposite. Still some spinning out and unraveling, but usually landing on acceptance and growth.
Request/suggestion. I wonder how you feel about shifting to "transmisia" instead of "transphobia"? In disability circles, we're trying to urge people away from *phobia because that tends to associate bigotry and hostility with actual, clinical phobias, which can perpetuate stigma against people who are clinically *phobic. I know it's a tough one, because most people aren't familiar with *misia, but if you're willing to consider it, that would be helpful. Thanks! Here's a rereference to it, if you'd like to learn more: https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html
It's in the list of words not inherently ableist, but become so in context.
That is a fair point, and coincidentally, I have been trying to work in the use of cissexism more to make my use of it more common, and slowly replace the use of transphobia already. I do not want to make it a jarring change though. Transmisia is a pretty awesome word that fits neatly into place, so I can certainly start working that into use as well. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and a neat word to learn, so thanks! As with all things habit based, it will take me time to adapt and adopt.
Ok folks, here we have a look at how one in the same thread, we can make the claim that everyone against them is a cult member, while demonstrating the very behavior they are calling out.
Logical Fallacies:
- False Equivalence: Comparing scientific research on prejudice to tobacco industry propaganda
- Reductio ad Absurdum: Using extreme tobacco/children example to dismiss legitimate research
- Appeal to Ridicule: Using "LOL" and scare quotes around "Studies" to dismiss scientific research
- Ad Hominem: Implying I, or those who would support research on this, would harm children based on TikTok/Pfizer ad (letting kids smoke).
- Slippery Slope: Suggesting accepting research leads to giving children cigarettes based on ads
- Poisoning the Well: Preemptively discrediting research by comparing to tobacco industry deception
The response reveals several concerning patterns:
- Dismisses scientific research while demonstrating fundamental misunderstanding of how it works
- Uses inflammatory examples (children and cigarettes) to provoke emotional rather than rational responses
- Shows profound misunderstanding of research methodology, including the distinctions between corporate propaganda, peer review, and scientific consensus
- Exhibits precisely the kind of evidence-resistant beliefs and defensive reactions that merit scientific study
The comparison to tobacco industry studies is particularly telling - it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific research works. Modern studies on prejudice and bias are conducted by independent researchers across multiple institutions, undergo peer review, and follow strict ethical guidelines - the opposite of corporate-funded propaganda.
The defensive response to the mere mention of studying transmisia and transmisic behavior, combined with immediate deflection to personal attacks, ironically provides compelling evidence for why such research is necessary. This response exemplifies a fascinating phenomenon worthy of study: how ideological positions can evolve into belief systems that actively resist empirical evidence and respond to scientific inquiry with hostility.
This is another perfect example of ideologically-motivated rhetoric masquerading as skepticism, while inadvertently demonstrating exactly why such scientific investigation is crucial.
Don't get me started criticizing our prison system but in California we have a bill on the ballot to pay prisoners for their work or make work optional. I firmly believe that private enterprises should not be making their profits on slave labor and prisoners should be paid for their work so that they can use this money to feed their families or put in a bank for them to use upon release. Our prison system does nothing but perpetuate crime and lives of crime.
Yes, here we are folks - Kat's claim that we have such low IQ's that we won't see her self-own at work. Truly it is a stunning display. Let's start with the comment and then work our way through the linked article.
Logical Fallacies:
- Moving the Goalposts: When presented with DOJ data, shifts to denying trans identity exists
- False Dichotomy: Presenting prison placement as only binary options while ignoring existing policies
- Red Herring: Bringing up pregnancy potential to deflect from assault statistics
- Ad Hominem: Resorting to personal attacks about IQ rather than engaging with evidence
- No True Scotsman: Claiming "all normal people" see their view
- Hasty Generalization: Using a single incident to make broad policy claims
Key Misrepresentations:
- Falsely claims there are no criteria for transgender identity (medical/psychological criteria exist)
- Dismisses DOJ statistical data without addressing its methodology
- Uses single anecdotal case to dismiss systematic data
- Conflates gender identity with "effeminate" behavior
The response demonstrates a pattern of:
1. Rejecting empirical evidence when it contradicts preexisting beliefs
2. Shifting discussion from data (DOJ statistics) to ideology (denying trans existence)
3. Using inflammatory language and personal attacks when confronted with contradicting evidence
4. Misrepresenting complex policy issues as simple binary choices
This exchange perfectly illustrates why evidence-based resources matter - when presented with actual data, the response is to deny the category exists rather than engage with the evidence. This is a textbook example of moving the goalposts: when the original claim about trans inmates and assault is disproven by DOJ data, the argument shifts to denying trans identity exists at all.
Now let's look at how Kat uses the article to support their argument:
Misrepresentations of the Article:
- Cherry-picks a single incident while ignoring the broader context (27 other trans inmates without incidents)
- Ignores that the transfer decision was made within established policy guidelines
- Omits that the behavior (consensual sex between inmates) is prohibited regardless of gender
- Fails to mention this was handled through existing protocols, not a systemic failure
Key Context Omitted:
- The facility houses 27 other transgender inmates without similar incidents
- The transfer was made under existing safety protocols, not a blanket policy change
- The policy was developed through legal settlement with ACLU
- Individual housing decisions consider multiple factors, not just gender identity
Logical Flaws in Kat's Use:
- Hasty Generalization: Using one case to argue against entire policy
- Cherry Picking: Selecting single negative incident while ignoring successful cases
- Post Hoc Fallacy: Assuming this incident proves the policy itself is flawed
- False Dichotomy: Presenting prison placement as only binary choices when actual policies are more nuanced
This case actually demonstrates how existing protocols work:
1. Policies exist to handle individual cases
2. Safety measures can be implemented when needed
3. Housing decisions consider multiple factors
4. System responds to specific incidents without abandoning entire policy
Rather than supporting Kat's argument, this article actually shows how existing policies handle complex situations with appropriate nuance - exactly what Kat claims isn't possible. Self own achievement unlocked.
What an odd way of admitting you did not read it at all, and have no good argument and evidence to support your claims or to counter the evidence presented.
Furthermore, you lost any shred of credibility the moment you were caught in your own lie and then refused to admit that you made up accusations against me without a single shred of evidence.
For those who do not read comments, you can start here for context:
Since you are one who has proven that they cannot admit when they are wrong, even in the face of obvious evidence, it calls into question the integrity of your other claims and arguments. What other assertions have you made that do not stand up to scrutiny?
Your conduct in this exchange exposes a disturbing lack of intellectual honesty. Arguing in good faith requires engaging with the actual substance of others' points, not attacking straw men. It requires providing evidence for your claims, not relying on unfounded speculation. And it requires admitting when you are wrong, not doubling down on demonstrably false accusations.
Hiding behind inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks only highlights the weakness of your position, and continues to expose you for who and what you are.
You said the magic word again! But I’m still not sure about the parallel you’re drawing between lobotomy and the various treatments offered to trans people. Is it just that you think both are bad, or is it more specific? (There’s actually a connection between lobotomy and sexual violence that I think is really interesting, but one thing at a time.)
As far as I can tell, your argument is that gender-affirming interventions and lobotomy are similar because in both cases, scientific consensus is wrong. I’d first like to say that there was never scientific consensus about lobotomy. At first blush, from the litigious twenty-first century, it may seem that there was, but that’s mostly the result of cultural differences. At the time, it was considered bad form for doctors to publicly criticize each other. That doesn’t mean no criticism existed, just that it was largely confined to communications between and among doctors. (My favorite of which is a mean and quite clever limerick about Freeman.) But even a cursory investigation shows that there was plenty of professional objection to lobotomy back in the day, much of it high profile. The American Medical Association, for example, took a stand against lobotomy in 1941, long before Moniz got his Nobel. (And while I assume you know this already, I’ll point out for the benefit of other readers that there were two kinds of lobotomy, and that the technique for which Moniz was given the Nobel—leucotomy—is not the one that became most popular. So even that award can’t really be considered an endorsement of Freeman’s transorbital procedure.)
But let’s grant that parallel for the sake of argument: lobotomy was embraced by the medical community then and is scorned now. From this starting point, you argue that gender-affirming treatments, currently endorsed by the AMA and the APA, will one day be equally scorned. Is that an accurate representation of your argument?
(Full disclosure: I am a cishet person, and I have no children. I in no way represent any queer community. I’m just a lobotomy nerd who thinks your arguments, as they pertain to lobotomy, are somewhat flawed.)
I’m mostly just grateful for a chance to nerd out. I don’t get them that often! And while I’m nerding out, here’s that mean limerick, because it’s so wonderfully ghastly:
Ah, observe the TERF argument in its natural habitat, attempting to camouflage historical revisionism as medical concern. Watch how it tries to conflate modern evidence-based medicine with historical malpractice - a fascinating defensive display commonly seen when confronted with scientific evidence. Notice the characteristic pattern: when threatened by peer-reviewed research, it quickly deploys false equivalencies as a protective measure. Let's observe the following in the comment together:
Logical Fallacies:
- False Equivalence: Equating modern peer-reviewed research with historical medical malpractice
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the commenter's use of "cishet" rather than addressing their argument
- Historical Revisionism: Misrepresenting the scientific consensus around lobotomies
- Red Herring: Bringing up opioid crisis to deflect from the original argument
- Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing terminology based on perceived origin rather than meaning
- Appeal to Future Judgment: "Everyone will see it was wrong"
Key Misrepresentations:
- Conflates widespread practice with scientific consensus
- Ignores crucial differences between historical and modern medical ethics/research standards
- Mischaracterizes the AMA's historical position
- Oversimplifies complex medical history to force a false parallel
Pattern of Argumentation:
1. Attacks language rather than substance
2. Shifts topic when presented with detailed historical context
3. Uses multiple unrelated medical controversies to imply equivalence
4. Makes unsupported predictions about future judgments
5. Dismisses nuanced historical analysis with broad generalizations
The response particularly reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of:
- How modern medical consensus differs from historical medical practices
- The role of peer review and evidence-based medicine
- The evolution of medical ethics and research standards
- The distinction between widespread practice and scientific validity
This exchange perfectly demonstrates why historical context matters - and how it can be misused to draw false equivalences while ignoring crucial differences in methodology, evidence standards, and ethical frameworks.
In greater detail, we can create the following counter argument based on the points we just observed above:
The comparison between modern gender-affirming care and historical medical mistakes like lobotomies fundamentally misunderstands how evidence-based medicine works. Modern gender care is supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, rigorous ethical oversight, and documented positive outcomes across multiple institutions worldwide. Unlike lobotomies, which lacked empirical support even when practiced, or the opioid crisis involving corporate manipulation of data, gender-affirming care protocols are continuously refined based on outcome studies, require informed consent, and follow established clinical guidelines with extensive safety monitoring.
This isn't about "seeing it early" - it's about recognizing the crucial differences between historical medical mistakes and current evidence-based practices. When lobotomies and opioids showed negative outcomes, the data revealed it. In contrast, properly administered gender-affirming care consistently shows positive outcomes in appropriately screened patients, as documented by numerous longitudinal studies and meta-analyses. The scientific consensus isn't based on mere clinical practice, but on empirical evidence regularly reviewed and updated by medical organizations worldwide.
Finally, we observe a fascinating example of psychological projection in the wild. Here Kat warns others about "embarrassing yourself" while demonstrating a remarkable inability to engage with historical evidence or distinguish between anecdote and data. It's a spectacular display of unaware self-owns in their natural habitat!
At least I don't tell lies and make irrational lists defending deranged trannies who attack women, male criminals in women's prisons, doctors who cut up and sterilize children, and pedophilia normalization.
You're immoral, and you're going to pay for this eventually.
I'm a boomer. A few of us aren't still stuck in mid-century mentality. Though I will admit, it's a much lower percentage than for younger generations. 🙃
Yeah, it's one of those insults I don't take too seriously; partly because - as a group - we do kind of deserve the criticism, even if some of us, as individuals, don't fit the stereotype.
Both my kids were talented highschool wrestlers and I supported them in on their meets. I'm a Boomer but my kid's friends were so accepting and respectful towards me as a trans parent it gives me much hope for their generation.
![People with Inconvenient Truths about Transphobes [PITT]](https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/w_36,h_36,c_fill,f_webp,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep,g_auto/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F704ba0db-3e10-4112-9364-c2f224d0cfae_500x500.png)
Aww you deleted Kat's comments. I was looking forward to reading those. This is strangely high-effort for rebutting someone who really doesn't have that big of an audience anyways. As for the subject itself, trans people obviously exist in the same sense that "goth" people or "punk" people exist, as a self-appointed identity. What people mean when they say "trans doesn't exist" is simply that men can't be women and vice versa.
as I mentioned elsewhere, this happened due to a bug in 24 hour block UI/popup. It closed before I could do anything about it, then the damage was done. I cannot restore all the comments, though I suppose I could to and copy/paste them all back in. But I am not putting that time and effort into. Besides, if you wait a day or so, she will just spam it all back there again.
PITT, did you use your high IQ and excellent logic skills to provide a legal strategy to the guy suing Hooters for not hiring him?
You're not his parent or legal guardian, are you? LOL
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oWiJ21hU_9E
Sad!
'Transgender' is scientific malpractice masquerading as 'social justice' when, in fact, it's just anti-social.
Another great master class of an article on how to thwart anti-trans rhetoric. I am in awe of your abilities and endurance, PITT! Kat routinely relies on intellectually shoddy tactics and you make it look effortless the way you disarm every last one. Also, I know it's not actually effortless, so you deserve Tom's of recognition for the time and commitment you dedicate to this project. Thank you.
Once again, I can't thank you enough for your incredibly kind and supportive words. Truly, it means the world to me to know that my work resonates with you, and I'm deeply grateful for the time you took to share your thoughts! The comments, discussion, and engagement is wonderful and motivating, a buoy in the torrent.
*tons* not *Tom's". WTF, spellcheck?
It happens to the best of us, lol <3
Ah, the demanding of questions begins again! We are shaking in our boots....
Logical Fallacies:
- Begging the Question: Assumes "trans doesn't exist" to prove trans doesn't exist
- False Premise: Claims no one can define terms when definitions have been provided
- Appeal to Ridicule: Using "LOL" to dismiss substantive analysis
- Red Herring: Focusing on demanding definitions rather than engaging with presented evidence
- Ad Hominem: Dismissing detailed analysis as "word salad"
- Vague Threat: "You guys are in trouble" without substantiation
Key Patterns:
- Sealioning: Repeatedly demanding definitions while ignoring provided answers
- Moving Goalposts: When presented with evidence, shifts to demanding definitions
- Projection: Claims others are "running away" while avoiding engagement with actual content
- False Victory: Claims triumph ("none of you can answer") while ignoring existing answers, or that the question was simply ignored.
The response demonstrates a common rhetorical tactic:
1. Ignore substantive content
2. Demand oversimplified definitions
3. Reject any nuanced answers as "word salad"
4. Declare victory when complex topics aren't reduced to soundbites
This perfectly illustrates why detailed analysis is necessary - the attempt to reduce complex human biology and identity to simplistic definitions is precisely what the article addresses. The defensive response and vague threats suggest the analysis hit close to home.
The irony is that this response validates the article's points about rhetorical tactics used to avoid engaging with evidence and research.
I haven't read the whole article yet, but felt compelled to comment on this:
"What we cannot say is precisely what causes it, why it happens, and where we need to look for a definitive answer. This is emerging research. Futhermore, there is a valid criticism in engaging in these studies. In the paper 'After the trans brain: a critique of the neurobiological accounts of embodied trans* identities' by Maite Arraiza Zabalegui, the main point seems to be that while biological factors may play a role, they are just one aspect of a complex, dynamic process that also involves social, cultural, and individual experiences throughout life."
This brought to mind for me one of the ongoing debates among Autistics, in which we discuss the hazards of research that focuses on prenatal processes/causes of autism. (I'm not going to say what my position on this is, because I don't want to derail the topic of this article, and since I am agender, it's not my place to express an opinion as it regards trans people, since it doesn't impact me directly; I doubt the research and politics of all this will ever concern itself much with the absence of gender, and will therefore limit its scope to those who experience gender in some way). But I think the debate itself is important. On one hand, research might be helpful in terms of a better understanding of health-related aspects of autism, and inspire ideas about ways to better identify the support needs immediately, from birth. Also, there are some Autistic people in the target group who would, given the choice, have preferred to have been born allistic. On the other hand, there is a very high potential for this kind of research to be used to either identify autism prenatally and give the parent the choice to abort, or to "fix" the developing fetus so that they develop allistically instead of autistically. There are many Autistics who consider these likely eventualities to be genocidal, or eugenicist. I think these concerns apply equally to trans people. This is a highly emotional subject for most people, and so it has high potential for conflict if it's not addressed mindfully and with a LOT of empathy and compassion. And it definitely should be addressed by trans people (if it's not already) rather than letting cis researches, doctors, and politicians set the framing and the narrative.
We are still making new discoveries in the field of genetics and the human brain is still an unexplored galaxy. Anyone who makes the mistake of thinking that their high school biology class provided the understanding of science that they need to counter our narrative is woefully ignorant.
I see. "Gender" has nothing to do with biology, but you can cite the brain as biological organ as proof for males who are actually females since they have ladybrains, even though they commit crime at the same rate as plain old males.
Which men are given brain scans before they're allowed to play women's sports?
How are these men identified in the first place?
Do any of them have female hearts and kidneys, or just brains?
Do any of you idiots even listen to yourselves?
It's so complicated, yet the Taliban figures out who to keep out of school and dogs know how to identify and avoid men.
You're dumber than terrorists and dogs. Have shame.
I see the parallelism here, and assuming we are on the same page, I agree.
This is why, as I noted in the article, critiques like Maite Arraiza Zabalegui's are important. They remind us that while biological factors may play a role, they are just one part of the complex influences that shape our identities. Social, cultural, and individual experiences are equally important, and any research or discussion of trans identities should take a holistic view.
I believe the goal of any such inquiry should be to improve the lives of trans people, and not for any other purpose. Trans people are not a problem to be solved, but a natural part of human diversity to be understood and celebrated.
Two studies came out this month on the role that RNA plays in determining biodiversity. Also in the "seesaw" debate between nurture vs. nature we still don't seam to remember that the brain is not just part of the nurture side in terms of our experiences but is also a huge part of the nature side. We know a lot about the psychology of the brain but not much about it's biology. In-vitro chemistry contributes a lot to brain development. That chemistry during pregnancy is influenced by numerous conditions inside and outside the womb. Perhaps the psychology of the mother even plays a role in our brain development before we are born.
Yes! The guiding motivation must be about improving life for the group being researched. That being said, one of the reasons this is such a hot debate amongst Autistics is because we have been made the fodder for a system ravaged by capitalism, and we've learned the hard way that there's always someone ready to make a buck off of us without any regard for the negative impact that causes for us. While there doesn't currently appear to be a substantial level of grift involved with trans healthcare, it is inevitable that at some point, the grifters will find their way in, so it's important to be vigilant to that possibility and be ready to stop them in their tracks whenever possible. That's why I feel it's important, as a community, for trans people to engage in this discussion with each other, rather than as a reactive defense if/when capitalist interests attempt to assert themselves into the discussion.
Same old crap. Kat learned absolutely nothing from reading all that research, despite it being rganized specifically to address their own confusion on the topic.
They really take wilful ignorance to new heights. I wonder what is really going on here, psychologically. What makes them incapable of learning anything new about this? Do you think it's their own gender confusuion bubbling up and their fear of it makes them lash out?
Or is it just as simple as Kat enjoying inflicting pain on the people suffering the most in our society?
Can't wait til we start doing research on these people with pathological levels of bigotry and stubborn ignorance.
There is no real research to read here. I learned more from reading "research" from Purdue Pharma insisting that Oxycontin didn't cause addiction.
There is no such thing as "gender confusion."
It doesn't exist.
I'm a woman, which is an adult human female. My hobbies, hairstyle, clothes, etc. do not change that, and I don't have to conform to any stereotypes or norms at all.
I never have. If I shaved my head, I would still be a woman.
If the girls in Afghanistan tried to "identify" out of being girls, men would beat them down.
Does that make you ashamed of your ignorant behavior? When you realize what women continue to suffer globally due to their sex?
My sex is unchangeable. It doesn't matter how hard you REEE about this.
LOL "Research"
You sub-80 IQ drooling dolts can't even tell me what a woman is or what a man is.
I think the reason that they double down on their position and refuse to learn anything new or acknowledge any new information on the subject as much to do with cognitive dissonance.
oh no doubt - I have seen that breakdown in person, when it finally reaches a point where they can no longer deal with the two opposing views. The end result was not pretty, and ultimately the blame was laid elsewhere. I was sad, because when that happens, that can be such a wonderful breakthrough and an opportunity for personal growth.
Are you saying that the result was not an acceptance of truth ?
No, sadly not. Instead I was blamed for pointing out the fact that their principles and values were both in conflict with each other, and their actions. They could not let it go, raged, spiraled out, and instead of settling on the facts of the matter and just accepting that things are what they are, they doubled-down and decided it was my fault for bringing it up and putting them through all of that.
That said, more often I see the opposite. Still some spinning out and unraveling, but usually landing on acceptance and growth.
Let's test that out here.
If "gender" has nothing to do with genitals, how does mutilating genitals get called "gender affirming" care?
Would you like to talk about raging and spiraling out?
Do you know how many women have been attacked in public by men inspired by the irrational word salads that you defend here?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=blAevl6xcxI
I think one such study is beginning (or is already underway), specifically about people like Kat and transphobia.
Request/suggestion. I wonder how you feel about shifting to "transmisia" instead of "transphobia"? In disability circles, we're trying to urge people away from *phobia because that tends to associate bigotry and hostility with actual, clinical phobias, which can perpetuate stigma against people who are clinically *phobic. I know it's a tough one, because most people aren't familiar with *misia, but if you're willing to consider it, that would be helpful. Thanks! Here's a rereference to it, if you'd like to learn more: https://www.autistichoya.com/p/ableist-words-and-terms-to-avoid.html
It's in the list of words not inherently ableist, but become so in context.
That is a fair point, and coincidentally, I have been trying to work in the use of cissexism more to make my use of it more common, and slowly replace the use of transphobia already. I do not want to make it a jarring change though. Transmisia is a pretty awesome word that fits neatly into place, so I can certainly start working that into use as well. Thanks for bringing this to my attention, and a neat word to learn, so thanks! As with all things habit based, it will take me time to adapt and adopt.
Thank you!
Ok folks, here we have a look at how one in the same thread, we can make the claim that everyone against them is a cult member, while demonstrating the very behavior they are calling out.
Logical Fallacies:
- False Equivalence: Comparing scientific research on prejudice to tobacco industry propaganda
- Reductio ad Absurdum: Using extreme tobacco/children example to dismiss legitimate research
- Appeal to Ridicule: Using "LOL" and scare quotes around "Studies" to dismiss scientific research
- Ad Hominem: Implying I, or those who would support research on this, would harm children based on TikTok/Pfizer ad (letting kids smoke).
- Slippery Slope: Suggesting accepting research leads to giving children cigarettes based on ads
- Poisoning the Well: Preemptively discrediting research by comparing to tobacco industry deception
The response reveals several concerning patterns:
- Dismisses scientific research while demonstrating fundamental misunderstanding of how it works
- Uses inflammatory examples (children and cigarettes) to provoke emotional rather than rational responses
- Shows profound misunderstanding of research methodology, including the distinctions between corporate propaganda, peer review, and scientific consensus
- Exhibits precisely the kind of evidence-resistant beliefs and defensive reactions that merit scientific study
The comparison to tobacco industry studies is particularly telling - it reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how scientific research works. Modern studies on prejudice and bias are conducted by independent researchers across multiple institutions, undergo peer review, and follow strict ethical guidelines - the opposite of corporate-funded propaganda.
The defensive response to the mere mention of studying transmisia and transmisic behavior, combined with immediate deflection to personal attacks, ironically provides compelling evidence for why such research is necessary. This response exemplifies a fascinating phenomenon worthy of study: how ideological positions can evolve into belief systems that actively resist empirical evidence and respond to scientific inquiry with hostility.
This is another perfect example of ideologically-motivated rhetoric masquerading as skepticism, while inadvertently demonstrating exactly why such scientific investigation is crucial.
Regarding prison rapes, DOJ reporting does not support your claim.
Trans inmates are much more likely to be the victims of sexual assault than the perpetrators.
See Tables 4 & 5.
https://bjs.ojp.gov/document/sisvraca1618.pdf
I don't think anyone's ever bothered to ask women in prison if they're afraid of trans women.
Don't get me started criticizing our prison system but in California we have a bill on the ballot to pay prisoners for their work or make work optional. I firmly believe that private enterprises should not be making their profits on slave labor and prisoners should be paid for their work so that they can use this money to feed their families or put in a bank for them to use upon release. Our prison system does nothing but perpetuate crime and lives of crime.
Yes, here we are folks - Kat's claim that we have such low IQ's that we won't see her self-own at work. Truly it is a stunning display. Let's start with the comment and then work our way through the linked article.
Logical Fallacies:
- Moving the Goalposts: When presented with DOJ data, shifts to denying trans identity exists
- False Dichotomy: Presenting prison placement as only binary options while ignoring existing policies
- Red Herring: Bringing up pregnancy potential to deflect from assault statistics
- Ad Hominem: Resorting to personal attacks about IQ rather than engaging with evidence
- No True Scotsman: Claiming "all normal people" see their view
- Hasty Generalization: Using a single incident to make broad policy claims
Key Misrepresentations:
- Falsely claims there are no criteria for transgender identity (medical/psychological criteria exist)
- Misrepresents prison policy complexities (ignores existing screening protocols)
- Dismisses DOJ statistical data without addressing its methodology
- Uses single anecdotal case to dismiss systematic data
- Conflates gender identity with "effeminate" behavior
The response demonstrates a pattern of:
1. Rejecting empirical evidence when it contradicts preexisting beliefs
2. Shifting discussion from data (DOJ statistics) to ideology (denying trans existence)
3. Using inflammatory language and personal attacks when confronted with contradicting evidence
4. Misrepresenting complex policy issues as simple binary choices
This exchange perfectly illustrates why evidence-based resources matter - when presented with actual data, the response is to deny the category exists rather than engage with the evidence. This is a textbook example of moving the goalposts: when the original claim about trans inmates and assault is disproven by DOJ data, the argument shifts to denying trans identity exists at all.
Now let's look at how Kat uses the article to support their argument:
Misrepresentations of the Article:
- Cherry-picks a single incident while ignoring the broader context (27 other trans inmates without incidents)
- Ignores that the transfer decision was made within established policy guidelines
- Omits that the behavior (consensual sex between inmates) is prohibited regardless of gender
- Fails to mention this was handled through existing protocols, not a systemic failure
Key Context Omitted:
- The facility houses 27 other transgender inmates without similar incidents
- The transfer was made under existing safety protocols, not a blanket policy change
- The policy was developed through legal settlement with ACLU
- Individual housing decisions consider multiple factors, not just gender identity
Logical Flaws in Kat's Use:
- Hasty Generalization: Using one case to argue against entire policy
- Cherry Picking: Selecting single negative incident while ignoring successful cases
- Post Hoc Fallacy: Assuming this incident proves the policy itself is flawed
- False Dichotomy: Presenting prison placement as only binary choices when actual policies are more nuanced
This case actually demonstrates how existing protocols work:
1. Policies exist to handle individual cases
2. Safety measures can be implemented when needed
3. Housing decisions consider multiple factors
4. System responds to specific incidents without abandoning entire policy
Rather than supporting Kat's argument, this article actually shows how existing policies handle complex situations with appropriate nuance - exactly what Kat claims isn't possible. Self own achievement unlocked.
What an odd way of admitting you did not read it at all, and have no good argument and evidence to support your claims or to counter the evidence presented.
Furthermore, you lost any shred of credibility the moment you were caught in your own lie and then refused to admit that you made up accusations against me without a single shred of evidence.
For those who do not read comments, you can start here for context:
https://open.substack.com/pub/pittpeople/p/supporting-transgender-youth-is-about?r=3khofc&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=72712685
Since you are one who has proven that they cannot admit when they are wrong, even in the face of obvious evidence, it calls into question the integrity of your other claims and arguments. What other assertions have you made that do not stand up to scrutiny?
Your conduct in this exchange exposes a disturbing lack of intellectual honesty. Arguing in good faith requires engaging with the actual substance of others' points, not attacking straw men. It requires providing evidence for your claims, not relying on unfounded speculation. And it requires admitting when you are wrong, not doubling down on demonstrably false accusations.
Hiding behind inflammatory rhetoric and personal attacks only highlights the weakness of your position, and continues to expose you for who and what you are.
You said the magic word again! But I’m still not sure about the parallel you’re drawing between lobotomy and the various treatments offered to trans people. Is it just that you think both are bad, or is it more specific? (There’s actually a connection between lobotomy and sexual violence that I think is really interesting, but one thing at a time.)
As far as I can tell, your argument is that gender-affirming interventions and lobotomy are similar because in both cases, scientific consensus is wrong. I’d first like to say that there was never scientific consensus about lobotomy. At first blush, from the litigious twenty-first century, it may seem that there was, but that’s mostly the result of cultural differences. At the time, it was considered bad form for doctors to publicly criticize each other. That doesn’t mean no criticism existed, just that it was largely confined to communications between and among doctors. (My favorite of which is a mean and quite clever limerick about Freeman.) But even a cursory investigation shows that there was plenty of professional objection to lobotomy back in the day, much of it high profile. The American Medical Association, for example, took a stand against lobotomy in 1941, long before Moniz got his Nobel. (And while I assume you know this already, I’ll point out for the benefit of other readers that there were two kinds of lobotomy, and that the technique for which Moniz was given the Nobel—leucotomy—is not the one that became most popular. So even that award can’t really be considered an endorsement of Freeman’s transorbital procedure.)
But let’s grant that parallel for the sake of argument: lobotomy was embraced by the medical community then and is scorned now. From this starting point, you argue that gender-affirming treatments, currently endorsed by the AMA and the APA, will one day be equally scorned. Is that an accurate representation of your argument?
(Full disclosure: I am a cishet person, and I have no children. I in no way represent any queer community. I’m just a lobotomy nerd who thinks your arguments, as they pertain to lobotomy, are somewhat flawed.)
I'm so envious of your ability to go high when they go low, hats off to you for your professionalism in the face of mudslinging.
I’m mostly just grateful for a chance to nerd out. I don’t get them that often! And while I’m nerding out, here’s that mean limerick, because it’s so wonderfully ghastly:
A fellow named Freeman said, "I've
a sharp little knife that I drive;
If you want to be dead
I'll bore holes in your head
and then you won't know you're alive."
Wow.
Tranny defenders making funny jokes and giggling about sticking ice picks in people's brains.
Then I wonder how you reprobates think it's acceptable to defend the "trans" lie and the mutilation of children.
Normal people see your disgusting, immoral, cultish behavior, and normal people are disgusted by it.
Yes, we will not forget this. That is a threat.
The "trans" lie is going to eclipse lobotomies as the worst medical scandal of all time.
You people are demonic.
IKR? Stephen is amazing!
Ah, observe the TERF argument in its natural habitat, attempting to camouflage historical revisionism as medical concern. Watch how it tries to conflate modern evidence-based medicine with historical malpractice - a fascinating defensive display commonly seen when confronted with scientific evidence. Notice the characteristic pattern: when threatened by peer-reviewed research, it quickly deploys false equivalencies as a protective measure. Let's observe the following in the comment together:
Logical Fallacies:
- False Equivalence: Equating modern peer-reviewed research with historical medical malpractice
- Ad Hominem: Attacking the commenter's use of "cishet" rather than addressing their argument
- Historical Revisionism: Misrepresenting the scientific consensus around lobotomies
- Red Herring: Bringing up opioid crisis to deflect from the original argument
- Genetic Fallacy: Dismissing terminology based on perceived origin rather than meaning
- Appeal to Future Judgment: "Everyone will see it was wrong"
Key Misrepresentations:
- Conflates widespread practice with scientific consensus
- Ignores crucial differences between historical and modern medical ethics/research standards
- Mischaracterizes the AMA's historical position
- Oversimplifies complex medical history to force a false parallel
Pattern of Argumentation:
1. Attacks language rather than substance
2. Shifts topic when presented with detailed historical context
3. Uses multiple unrelated medical controversies to imply equivalence
4. Makes unsupported predictions about future judgments
5. Dismisses nuanced historical analysis with broad generalizations
The response particularly reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of:
- How modern medical consensus differs from historical medical practices
- The role of peer review and evidence-based medicine
- The evolution of medical ethics and research standards
- The distinction between widespread practice and scientific validity
This exchange perfectly demonstrates why historical context matters - and how it can be misused to draw false equivalences while ignoring crucial differences in methodology, evidence standards, and ethical frameworks.
In greater detail, we can create the following counter argument based on the points we just observed above:
The comparison between modern gender-affirming care and historical medical mistakes like lobotomies fundamentally misunderstands how evidence-based medicine works. Modern gender care is supported by decades of peer-reviewed research, rigorous ethical oversight, and documented positive outcomes across multiple institutions worldwide. Unlike lobotomies, which lacked empirical support even when practiced, or the opioid crisis involving corporate manipulation of data, gender-affirming care protocols are continuously refined based on outcome studies, require informed consent, and follow established clinical guidelines with extensive safety monitoring.
This isn't about "seeing it early" - it's about recognizing the crucial differences between historical medical mistakes and current evidence-based practices. When lobotomies and opioids showed negative outcomes, the data revealed it. In contrast, properly administered gender-affirming care consistently shows positive outcomes in appropriately screened patients, as documented by numerous longitudinal studies and meta-analyses. The scientific consensus isn't based on mere clinical practice, but on empirical evidence regularly reviewed and updated by medical organizations worldwide.
Finally, we observe a fascinating example of psychological projection in the wild. Here Kat warns others about "embarrassing yourself" while demonstrating a remarkable inability to engage with historical evidence or distinguish between anecdote and data. It's a spectacular display of unaware self-owns in their natural habitat!
At least I don't tell lies and make irrational lists defending deranged trannies who attack women, male criminals in women's prisons, doctors who cut up and sterilize children, and pedophilia normalization.
You're immoral, and you're going to pay for this eventually.
I wish you luck with the proverbial tax man The IRS still hasn't awakened to the fact that churches are businesses.
I'm a boomer. A few of us aren't still stuck in mid-century mentality. Though I will admit, it's a much lower percentage than for younger generations. 🙃
A boomer who thinks THEY/THEM pronouns will distract everyone from noticing a total lack of personality and intelligence?
LOL
You people are a waste.
I'm a Boomer too but I will admit to using the term to describe others in a derogatory manner regardless of their actual age or generation.
Yeah, it's one of those insults I don't take too seriously; partly because - as a group - we do kind of deserve the criticism, even if some of us, as individuals, don't fit the stereotype.
Not sure who this was directed at. If you meant me, thank you. Considering the source, I will take that as a compliment.
Don't wrestle with pigs you'll get filthy dirty and the pigs love it
Yeah, and it is true - whether I like it or not - that my generation has more of that kind of person than younger generations do.
Both my kids were talented highschool wrestlers and I supported them in on their meets. I'm a Boomer but my kid's friends were so accepting and respectful towards me as a trans parent it gives me much hope for their generation.