@Azzu We can work with what we have: but what we have cannot be used in the way you’re trying to use it. It is very much early days: what we’re discovering is barely more than trivia, and our conclusions routinely get overthrown when we figure out we were looking at the data wrong.
You’re saying “some studies try to apply the ‘it’s innate’ model, and get results, therefore it’s innate”, and I’m saying “there is as yet insufficient evidence to support that reasoning”. Why do we disagree here?
Because it is relevant to people and what they should be doing right now. Life can not stop or stay in limbo until we have more evidence. Most often it is better to act on the best guess than to do nothing.
It’s fine if stuff changes and one thing turns out wrong later.
I’m confused. What action are you proposing? As far as I’m aware, the state-of-the-art treatments for trans people have precisely zero to do with the origins of transness. (That’s one of the reasons I reckon the research in the area is understudied: as with autism, when the actual experts turn their hands to practical matters, they tend to focus on adapting things to better suit people in question, rather than trying to eliminate the development of non-conforming traits.)
I mean a “treatment” that has been suggested and applied is trying to help trans people be not trans anymore, through some form of therapy, mostly because it was believed that it’s “unnatural” and a mental illness, a way that people shouldn’t be like. The treatment now is the polar opposite effectively, not treat it like an illness at all, instead letting trans people embrace their preferred gender, because it’s generally believed that it’s not a mental illness that should be worked against.
Like idk, social anxiety disorder, while probably for some people having an innate component, is mostly believed to be caused by trauma during development. Twin studies have also been conducted for social anxiety disorder, however the risk increase was only 30-50%, while for gender dysphoria it was an increase from absolute values of ~2% to ~30%, so an increase of something like 1500%. As such, it is treated much differently, trying to figure out the triggers of the social anxiety disorder and doing some kind of therapy to continually lessen its effects.
Wet streets cause rain: if the streets are wet, the water evaporates, which forms clouds, which results in rain. Science!
I don’t know, I’m not a Highly-Esteemed Expert, but have you considered that maybe being trans can make you anxious in social situations?
Doing statistics doesn’t make you right, if you’re ignoring obvious hypotheses in favour of relatively absurd ones. Which is what most academics studying the Origins of Transgender® seem to *always* do. (resp. gay, neurodivergent, etc.)
These models never admit the existence of non-binary / gender-fluid / agender people, are usually predicated in discredited never-evidenced dogma-models, and nearly always have eugenic applications. It’s pretty much the same group of people citing each other, and never addressing the criticisms of their methods or models except to say “look at the numbers!”.
There’s only so much of this that you can attribute to ignorance. Selective literature reviews, scientific bigotry, etc. are not ethical.
@Azzu We can work with what we have: but what we have cannot be used in the way you’re trying to use it. It is very much early days: what we’re discovering is barely more than trivia, and our conclusions routinely get overthrown when we figure out we were looking at the data wrong.
You’re saying “some studies try to apply the ‘it’s innate’ model, and get results, therefore it’s innate”, and I’m saying “there is as yet insufficient evidence to support that reasoning”. Why do we disagree here?
Because it is relevant to people and what they should be doing right now. Life can not stop or stay in limbo until we have more evidence. Most often it is better to act on the best guess than to do nothing.
It’s fine if stuff changes and one thing turns out wrong later.
I’m confused. What action are you proposing? As far as I’m aware, the state-of-the-art treatments for trans people have precisely zero to do with the origins of transness. (That’s one of the reasons I reckon the research in the area is understudied: as with autism, when the actual experts turn their hands to practical matters, they tend to focus on adapting things to better suit people in question, rather than trying to eliminate the development of non-conforming traits.)
I mean a “treatment” that has been suggested and applied is trying to help trans people be not trans anymore, through some form of therapy, mostly because it was believed that it’s “unnatural” and a mental illness, a way that people shouldn’t be like. The treatment now is the polar opposite effectively, not treat it like an illness at all, instead letting trans people embrace their preferred gender, because it’s generally believed that it’s not a mental illness that should be worked against.
Like idk, social anxiety disorder, while probably for some people having an innate component, is mostly believed to be caused by trauma during development. Twin studies have also been conducted for social anxiety disorder, however the risk increase was only 30-50%, while for gender dysphoria it was an increase from absolute values of ~2% to ~30%, so an increase of something like 1500%. As such, it is treated much differently, trying to figure out the triggers of the social anxiety disorder and doing some kind of therapy to continually lessen its effects.
Wet streets cause rain: if the streets are wet, the water evaporates, which forms clouds, which results in rain. Science!
I don’t know, I’m not a Highly-Esteemed Expert, but have you considered that maybe being trans can make you anxious in social situations?
Doing statistics doesn’t make you right, if you’re ignoring obvious hypotheses in favour of relatively absurd ones. Which is what most academics studying the Origins of Transgender® seem to *always* do. (resp. gay, neurodivergent, etc.)
When the general strategy of your “science” has been shown, time and time again, to cause harm, it is absolutely not better than nothing.
These models never admit the existence of non-binary / gender-fluid / agender people, are usually predicated in discredited never-evidenced dogma-models, and nearly always have eugenic applications. It’s pretty much the same group of people citing each other, and never addressing the criticisms of their methods or models except to say “look at the numbers!”.
There’s only so much of this that you can attribute to ignorance. Selective literature reviews, scientific bigotry, etc. are not ethical.