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.
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.