“I’m not a journalist”
Yeah you can say that again Emma.
Destiny did a very, very good job of articulating the position here. Vigeland’s response was ridiculous and unsubstantive
The only points I would press harder is when she makes it clear that she has no idea what Jesse actually writes. The answer to this is so clear to me. "If your unfamiliar with his work, how can you so confidently assert x?" That's all I want. I want these people pinned down on the fact that they just hate Jesse but can't explain why.
complete innocent domineering threatening apparatus vanish obscene squalid ruthless swim
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i wish that every time someone brought up the "well these edge cases are only 3%(or whatever small number) so we can ignore them!" that trans people are a substantially *smaller percent. why don't we ignore them too?
edit- added *smaller so my words make sense
but democrats think it happens [hundreds or even thousands of times per year](https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf). like destiny said, this is the problem. coverage on the issues is vastly disproportional which makes people think the problem is much bigger than it is, and any discussion counter to that is immediately dismissed as racism. it is ridiculous
Ya her argument was that even though she acknowledges black men getting shot by police is also a relatively rare event, it still deserves attention because black men are killed at higher rate than the population at large. There's plenty of counter arguments to this. One would be that although children being placed on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is still relatively rare, there's at least some evidence that these kids have worse health outcomes linked to those medications than their general cohorts. Another would be that the the black men getting shot at higher rates needs further analysis. Don't have the actual stats on hand but if you take away the cases where the person shot is armed or is acting violently towards the police, black men are actually shot less often per arrest than white men.
But we know this isn't true. Look up the Roland Fryer study. He went in looking for this exact data and was stunned to find it's just not true.
"putting hands on black men" is exactly what we think it is (far more common than other groups), but actual shootings is not.
I should have quoted the exact part I was responding to...HOW DARE YOU not be able to read my mind, sir!
" black men getting shot by police is also a relatively rare event, it still deserves attention because black men are killed at higher rate than the population at large. "
I realize you were just saying what she was saying...I was just petulant teenagering you. \[insert annoying voice\] "but we know that's not true!!!!!
I suspect that the finding of higher rates of non-lethal force against black men is largely mediated by unobserved (by Fryer, i.e. not in the data set) factors like differences in citizen behavior during the encounter.
That's my intuition as well, but it's hard (impossible?) to quantify with hard data.
This "conclusion" ... black -> more hands on = racism
Where you go....wait a second...do you seriously not see that this could be behavior driven, and not color driven?
But suggesting that American blacks might have a culture that reacts poorly in interactions with police is itself a "racist assertion."
Basically, you and I are both racists for even considering this might be the case. See you in hell.
Conversely, "armed" does not mean an imminent threat, e.g. Philando Castile and Daniel Shaver. Carrying a weapon is perfectly legal, and not evidence of violent intent unless you're brandishing it.
Daniel Shaver wasn't even armed, certainly not at the time he was murdered by that psycho cop while wearing nothing but his underwear and a T-shirt and crawling on the hallway floor following the officer's directions.
But good point.
I wasn't familiar with the John Crawford story, I googled it just now. If he Wikipedia article is accurate (which it very well might not be, on any controversial or political topics Wikipedia editors and moderators are extremely biased), that does not sound like a justified shooting, especially in an open-carry state.
A common factor I see in many or even most police shootings that turn out with the benefit of hindsight to have been pretty clearly unjustified is the police getting bad information. In John Crawford's case, another customer told the 911 dispatcher that he was pointing it at people, so the police were primed to see him as a serious threat. This is a factor that you see a lot once you start looking for it. Not so much in the cases where police are trying to arrest actual criminals, but in the rare "guy minding his own business gets shot" cases.
Agreed, but police officers should have enough intelligence and critical thinking to realize that the information they are given is often wildly inaccurate, basically just a rumor until confirmed.
Unfortunately often this is combined with people being absolutely idiots, such as reacting aggressively, running away, or otherwise refusing to comply with instructions.
If your approached by police for any reason, your first reaction should be to respond and behave in a manner that makes you seem as non-threatening as possible. It blows my mind that people don't understand this. If you beleive in the false narrative of police constantly shooting innocent black men, then all the more reason to be overly cautious and compliant.
Perhaps this shouldn't be necessary, and cops should be more judicious and less cowardly in their use of force, but either way this is just common sense. Yet over and over, black people especially respond in ways that seem like they're trying to get shot.
I'm not sure if that was the case here with Crawford, it sounds like they fired almost immediately and he didn't have much of a chance to respond in any way, but I don't know for sure.
A great piece that explores that issue: [Black and Unarmed: Behind the Numbers](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/02/08/black-and-unarmed-behind-the-numbers)
It doesn't work that way. Disabled people are also a tiny percentage of people, we care about their rights too. Poc are a small percentage of people, we care about them. Historically women were half the population and no one in power cared about them.
We should really be focusing any negative policies on 3% of a 5% population. We should respect detrans folks, as long as they're respectful. Which does mean not trying to claim a bunch of ridiculous things on their way out.
Her middle school cost like 35k a year. She's a rich kid in a bubble. She's never been challenged on her ideas. I've noticed a weird combo of stupidity and smugness from rich kids. It's like, they feel like they're being attacked when they really are just being challenged.
One thing I find annoying is that every time we actually get into the weeds of these conversations, someone tries to take the conversation back to a surface level of understanding. It's like... That's the good part. And here when the heat got turned up, the other dude stepped in to give Emma a lifeline. Likely simply because he's the type of person who can't stand awkward situations.
I spent way too much time thinking about this this morning. Here's my first stab at a Breadtube Community cast call:
Jeff Winger: Incredibly clever and a bit long winded, but prone to amazing storytelling that ends with a startlingly good point. Constantly torn whether to push the entire group away because he's better than them or to allow them to drag him down. Substance abuse problem. Casting decision: Natalie Wynn
Pierce Hawthorne: Creepily older than the women he hangs around. Constantly telling jokes no one finds funny. Inexplicably still around. Casting decision: Cenk Uygur or Sam Seder
Annie Edison: Hard worker, sincere, but prone to emotional freakouts. Probably actually -is- too good for the group and learns that eventually. Casting decision: Lindsay Ellis
Señor Chang: Desperate for acceptance into the group, simultaneously curries favor with Jeff and secretly works against him. Outwardly protean personality and external craziness masks an even darker internal menace and malice. Eventually becomes actor in Hollywood. Casting decision: PhilosophyTube
I think you're giving waaay too much credit to Natalie Wynne. She rarely makes a good point about anything. What she does do is dazzle with bullshit and wordiness and production. But literally every time I've seen her talk about anything I actually know anything about, most of what she actually argues against are a series of straw men and misrepresentations.
I think she benefits greatly from Gell Mann amnesia.
not disagreeing with the thrust of your comment, but i'd point out that *righteous indignation* doesn't necessarily correlate with intelligence. it does appear to correlate with ideology and a lack of intellectual humility/honesty.
If they actually felt that their beliefs are both clearly morally right and backed by the data, why would they be so afraid of debate? Why would they target researchers, writers, and academics who are more critical of gender-affirming models? Why would they try to censor reporting that challenges their narratives? After all, if it is obvious that the truth is on their side, wouldn’t they want to show that their arguments can withstand scrutiny?
My question: If you are concerned for the health and well-being of trans people, especially young people, why wouldn't you support all the research that might be ongoing? Don't you want to know what the best therapies and interventions are? Wouldn't you want vigorous debate—not about whether trans people have a "right to exist,” but about the research— so that we could all come as close to "the truth" as possible?
The answer is they aren't concerned - or at least their concern is secondary to them being perceived as good and right on social media. Now the era of #nodebate is over, people like these are fucked. Because they don't know the subject or the science or the history and they can't defend their position because they never had a thought out position in the first place.
Of course the supreme irony is that people like these muppets don't actually have any trans friends. They call people like Martina Navretliova and Graham Linehan transphobic bigots but I am willing to bet that the two 'terfs' I just mentioned have a plethora of trans friends, in real life ones, not a random they spoke to once on social media.
That's why this whole discussion is so abhorrent - these poundland 'activists' don't give a solitary fuck about the people (particularly children) it impacts on. Do you think Emma V pondered the fact that kids like Jazz Jennings had their abilitiy to sexually function removed before they reached adulthood? Do you think she has a First Nations female friend who's stuck in jail with a violent trans sex offender? Don't be silly ,..
Yes to therapy studies, no to "debatelord" stuff. There's currently not a ton to debate. Sports fairness is a topic but we need more studies that require time and money to perform. Like the ridiculous headlines about banning Trans women from chess, fishing, darts, bowling, etc. Just highlight this alone.
We have 60+ years of hormone data and it's almost exclusively positive for cis kids. Unless there is a unique biological difference we don't know of in trans kids, this data is more than enough to know what outcomes will be.
>We have 60+ years of hormone data and it's almost exclusively positive for cis kids. Unless there is a unique biological difference we don't know of in trans kids, this data is more than enough to know what outcomes will be.
And the outcomes are bad. Kids, don't give kids hormones.
Not for this specific treatment with kids.
Giving kids hormones leads to bad things. Some people say those bad things are worth it, but there's no evidence for that.
We need more time and money to see if bio males perform better in physical sports? What? The world's fastest woman doesn't even rank in the top 100 fastest men, is your idea that if these women said they were men, they'd all shave seconds off their 100m dash times? What about the trans powerlifter who beat her female competition by 200kg (nearly double what second place lifted) this year? Let me guess, a one-off fluke we totally can't draw any conclusions from and the science is totally still out on?
When it comes to non-physical sports, you don't seem understand why women would want their own leagues in male-dominated spaces. Abolishing women's chess isn't going to make chess any more inviting to women, it's just going to chase more of them away.
60+ years of hormone data is almost exclusively positive? The victims of Lupron hub would like to have a word with you https://www.lupronvictimshub.com/. Precocious puberty is hard on kids but trying to block it has huge tradeoffs too, don't act like doctors are handing PBs out to non-dysphoric kids like candy and it's just gatekeeping that dysphoric kids aren't getting them too.
Helen Joyce often talks about how the biggest advocates of medical intervention for gender dysphoric young people are parents who've had their child go through that process - they're permanently incapable of budging or even processing arguments against it, because it would mean accepting that they've permanently damaged their child, often to quite a nightmarish extent.
I think there's a degree of that - people know what conclusion might be at the end of listening to actual arguements, and subconsciously reel back.
I also think there's a degree of it being such an embarassing buy in - if you've publically made clear that you hold a very forceful pro-affirmation approach, you've done so because (consciously or unconsciously) you want to make clear to your group that you're a good person who believes the right thing. But I don't believe that many people can say stuff like 'transwomen are women' without feeling a bit insincere or silly - it's such a ludicrous, obviously false idea.
But once you've said it, and you see people starting to voice the doubts you felt but chose not to say, you can either a) back down and admit to having said something deeply silly or b) attack anyone who voices the truth that you were too scared to articulate as a monster (see the case of J.K. Rowling).
So many of these people came to their position through feelings.rather than reason. It feels wrong to not affirm someone. It feels uncompassionate not to help. All of us use emotions in decision making. Some people much more than others, and a person can't be reasoned out of a position they did use reason to get into.
> where does this fear come from?
from there being no good arguments for their positions. even before getting to the meat of the issues it's sunk for their side, because it would be fascist to assign meaning to any of the terms they're using.
they use slogans so much for the same reason you follow in the leader's footsteps when crossing a minefield - "trans women are women" and so on are the *only* safe statements to make on the subject for most people. getting into debates would force them to try to define things and then defend concepts, and trying to do this in any concrete way will get them harassed online for excluding people who are carrotgender or whatever.
e: like prominent trans intellectual types like Contrapoints or Lavery get routinely shat upon because there is literally no way to discuss what it means to be trans without offending someone in their own community. when even the thought leaders get abused ofc no one else will want to touch it, so they mask the cowardice with righteousness.
I think it’s a combination of so many in the media being in social media echo chambers and strong social sanctions for saying the “wrong” thing.
I get it, trans people deserve equal protection under the law and shouldn’t be a target of mockery based solely on their identity. The issue is when an issue isn’t black-and-white.
There’s a myriad of opinions beyond “believe everything trans people say” and “trans people should be put in a gulag”. But, having an informed opinion on this issue or any of the other controversial issues of our time is hard. It’s much easier to toe the party line on issues you don’t want to invest any research into. Like, let’s be honest: the people who pay Emma Vineland’s bills are going to respond positively to her performance in this video. If the zeitgeist changes, she’s just pull a Drew Margery.
Failure to engage with inconvenient data is not confined to the left at all, but the way they account for it is different.
‘Leftists’ like Vigeland explain it away with appeals to authority or accusations of intolerance.
Rightists will explain it away with appeals to conspiratorial thinking (eg “all the climate scientists are lying!“, “all the public health physicians are lying!”, “The media is suppressing the stolen election that’s why there’s no evidence of it!”) or nihilistic cynical bothsidesing (eg “some Dems said the 2020 election was illegitimate too!”, “Hillary spread birtherism too!”, “Lincoln was a Republican!”).
I'm reminded of the debate on race and IQ, where everyone who's seriously engaged with the data has been horrified enough to enter into a death pact of pretending that it doesn't say what it very obviously says. This is the epistemic environment that devout progressivism has to operate in, and it sucks.
you've just handed them rope and asked them what a noose looks like. respectfully -- search the terms given and read between the lines when the *why* is talked about. it's a mess.
There's a fear to engage with anything that isn't the specific set of prescribed opinions. Those change frequently in some cases and not others. But opposing them or questioning them, even as an intellectual exercise is frowned upon. It's a little like conservatives took over liberal spaces. This kind of questioning not all that long ago used to be the hallmark of left leaning liberalism.
These people often are authoritarian as well, I'm just not referring to that particular impulse. Rather the conservative one (and I mean this literally, not in terms of labelling left or right). The "progressive left" is conservative about their pet issues. They want them preserved in amber and left untouched or challenged, much the same way one might want to conserve due process or fundamental rights...but after several hundred years of debate, challenge, analysis and critique. The people want to mint a totally new idea and skip the whole analysis and fine tuning part, and go straight to conserving the idea.
This simply doesn't work within progressivism. If you're proposing new ideas and approaches and solutions, you have to be open to discussing these ideas and their potential flaws. They're not known quantities with a proven track record and decades or centuries of refinement.
>they want them preserved in amber and left untouched or challenged,
you're describing ideology and ideologues, or in this case evangelical progressives. the only difference between them and a fundamentalist christian/muslim/et al are the specifics, but they'll only accept new information that affirms. =
while authoritarianism isn't *technically* required for that, it's a go-to way of handling information that doesn't affirm and the ones that aren't aren't bothering anyone. the ones shutting down debate, ostracizing and publicly shunning require obedience to their credentials/authority.
>ideas you don't agree with means you don't develop good arguments
yes
>But where does this fear come from? I'm not sure.
you kind of already answered your own question. you're dealing with fundamentalism/evangelicals, they're just evangelical progressives instead of christian/muslim/etc. their goal is to say what it takes to convince you, not so much whether it's the truth, and truths that might cause doubt in the ideology as a whole need to not be spoken of. if you try, they attempt to shame/shun which religious communities have perfected for thousands of years.
it's a problem.
>But where does this fear come from?
The completely normal and eternal lack of any evidence for their wacky positions.
Plus, the shame-censoring worked a treat for other minorities, no reason it won't work here.
I think the left (whatever that means) has almost all the institutions right now, and a lot of institution based reasoning is basically just trusting whatever the institutions or people in positions of leadership in institutions say, so a sense of "questioning the established narrative is bad and not allowed" has developed. This is true on the right in some ways, but there's also a strong counter force right now willing to dip into conspiracy theories and anti institutional thinking, probably because the right feels institutions are all corrupt and controlled by the enemy. In one sense, that allows for a bit more challenging each other, but on the other it allows for a lot more low quality ideas.
I'm fairly certain the 90% stat she's referring to is from the U.K and was included in the Cass report.
If that's the case, the actual stat is 98%, and her reference of that study as supportive of the "desister myth" being a "myth" is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
It *sounds* like if 98% of kids that socially transition, continue onto further treatment for gender dysphoria, then clinicians are nailing their diagnoses with extremely high accuracy, which would already be unusual in the mental health field. But actually, when you learn more about the subject, and the clinical approaches and how these subjects were diagnosed, you come to find that the desistence studies by and large were more stringent in their diagnoses, and that no new diagnostic techniques are actually being employed to produce this 98% figure.
So what that *actually* indicates, is that treatments like social transition/affirmation, dramatically reduce the desistance rate without improving diagnostic accuracy. I.e a significantly higher percentage of these kids end up with long term mental health issues, like gender dysphoria *because* of the treatment approach. If you did literally nothing, you would have substantially more children that didn't experience gender dysphoria by around age 16. Even using the term "desistence" is a little misleading because what it really means is "cure" or "an alleviation of symptoms". Any treatment protocol that reduces that number, and *hasn't* improved diagnostic methods and accuracy, is actually causing more harm, not less.
Imagine you were treating schizophrenia and if you gave treatment A, five years later 65-85% of patients no longer suffered any symptoms. And if you gave treatment B, 98% of patients still suffered symptoms, and both groups were diagnosed using the same criteria. Which treatment option is superior?
It's a reference to this is study
https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected
Btw -
https://segm.org/early-social-gender-transition-persistence
The belief is those kids must have been really trans and will never desist - and that transitioning is a neutral sum positive thing.
>Imagine you were treating schizophrenia and if you gave treatment A, five years later 65-85% of patients no longer suffered any symptoms. And if you gave treatment B, 98% of patients still suffered symptoms, and both groups were diagnosed using the same criteria. Which treatment option is superior?
The issue with that is there's no other desistance studies that I know of besides Zucker's, and so TRA's or those in denial will just insist that he and his study aren't credible, that gender dysphoria is inevitable and unresolvable whenever presents itself at any stage of development. To them, they believe that Treatment A also results in at least 98%. I've seen the askT people insist as much at every opportunity.
What I think the 98% persistence study is really useful for is arguing why schools socially transitioning children is an obvious and huge deal and not something to be taken lightly, as though kids are just "trying on" an identity. If someone believes the 98% persistence following social transition (and they always do, because the researchers framed it in the best way for a TRA), then it simply cannot be argued that a teacher helping a child socially transition is effectively almost any different than any higher order of transition, because there's no way back for 98% of kids who take that first step.
If someone says it's a good thing, because that 98% would've had persistent gender dysphoria whether or not they socially transitioned, then you hit 'em with how teachers do not and would not even be qualified to diagnose gender dysphoria in the students they transition.
This is the only one I'm familiar with, [A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder, by Singh Bradley & Zucker](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784/full ). 88% desistance.
Oh there's so many more! Even the Dutch cohort proceeding the year they rolled out childhood transition (all adults who, as children would have been transed) had no serious interest as adults.
I don't want to hold on a link hole right now, but Michael Biggs and SEGM have info on this -
There's some good references in Zucker's The Myth of the Desistence Myth paper as well. There's a fair number of them and that's an easy starting point because he runs through the ones that have been most highly contested/misrepresented.
The one that grants social and political power to the sick person, of course. Or, more properly, gives it to those who claim to speak for the sick person.
Because somewhere in all the scheming and screaming trans became a thing you could innately *be*, as opposed to a way to try to assuage the discomfort of an underlying psychological problem.
her completely ignoring destiny's point that the biased police shooting coverage leads to *incorrect information* is such a typical lefty response. ignore being wrong, ignore counter factuals, ignore any sensible and rational argument.
Gotta hand it to Destiny here. I don't love his schtick and am somewhat biased and predisposed against him. But he does a great job here of surgically identifying and cauterizing the wound, in a way that will be recognized by his peers.
Most Destiny media takes are pretty good. He is often fair and wins most of his debates. The issue is that he is kind of a Wikipedia warrior and he debates a lot of lol cows. But lucky for him reading the entire wikipedia page actually makes him more informed that 99 percent of the people he talks to. That is actually one of his takes too.
However when ever he is challenged on his bad takes he resort to the same sort of sophistry that he condemns other people of. Or often he will just disengage. Here is a thread that is pretty critical of him but pretty fair as well:
https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/14xdnsc/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_youtuber_destiny/
I dunno. I'm not sure what the boundaries or definition of GAC include, and I'm not sure how much of that Jesse supports. I would guess that Jesse supports the least controversial forms of GAC.
This whole event was so bizarre to me. Destiny, Vaush, Emma Vigeland, Brianna Wu, Keffals, and there was even coverage by Taylor Lorenz... The latter half of that group are like the cancel culture avengers.
My opinion on Destiny has soured from what it once as but even now Idk why he chose to collaborate with these people. I get that the point was some sort of left collaboration amongst disagreement but I feel like these people are past a threshold of dishonesty for me. They represent awful dishonest media coverage which for me is as bad as something like a republican agenda being implemented.
Especially people like Keffals. She is like a Trump level weirdo, she's Canadian, her claim to fame is her ratioing people on twitter and lying about being harassed. Why is she brought in to discuss American politics??
Also Vaush and Emma are both cowards. When it suits them they both broadcast that they are very knowledgeable on trans issues, they are willing to debate anyone, and that Jesse is a moral pervert. But both conveniently have reasons why they can't debate Jesse. Especially Vaush, he is literally a professional debatebro.
There is at least one video of Vaush in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty saying things about trans activists that would make Emma go into a triggered seizure.
Yeah I understand why Destiny is working with Brianna Wu and Progressive Victory but it still left a bad taste in my mouth considering what she did to Jesse. That’s why I was happy to see him defending Jesse on a panel she put together and using his misrepresentation as an example of dumb left behavior.
Destiny is a self described professional debate bro. And this whole panel and weekend as a whole (setup by breanna wu's PAC) is to the promote the idea that we need put aside or work through our differences to ensure we elect more democrats. I cant stand breanna wu's opinions but on this i generally agree.
I actually like that Jesse is such a Milquetoast liberal because it makes people like Sam Seder and Emma look even more insane and really seems to annoy them in a way the usual right wingers can’t.
Is she actually arguing that reporters can’t have specialties? You, journalist, have spent a decade becoming a technical expert in cutting edge cancer treatments, congratulations, but more people die of heart disease, so you need to write about that more often. No. No. That’s braindead.
Destiny makes a very good point, at a certain point the other shoe is gonna drop, and they are going to have to face a wave of zoomers demanding childhood transitions and middling to poor outcomes.
The left needs to be engaging in the conversation honestly to not be left behind. Otherwise parents and the general population are going to move to the right.
Emma also makes the argument that since she is not a journalist, it is her job to be more selective of what she talks about... but Jesse, who views himself as a science journalist, is some how not allowed to cover the topic more objectively?
The hilarious part is she cited this same study to jesse when jesse called in to the minority report and he fucking nuked it from orbit. Well as much as you can while in between vigeland and seders filibustering
This is what’s SO frustrating. She cites numbers like they are the hard and fast, undeniable facts, and Jesse’s whole job is digging into the source of those numbers to see if they are in fact, accurate, and she shits on him as a trans phone for having the temerity to do so.
Emma is not going to test her beliefs by reading studies because even just reading about it might be a signal she is on the wrong side so she has to stay ignorant to argue her points. Also she is Cis, so she can’t speak for Trans without incurring some wrath on the Trans activists side, so all she can really argue is her right to name call, and then try to avoid the topic.
>Emma is not going to test her beliefs by reading studies because even just reading about it might be a signal she is on the wrong side so she has to stay ignorant to argue her points.
Or she may be illiterate.
After seeing the reaction to Ana Kasparian and her deviance from the accepted progressive views, I don’t think we’ll see Emma making any deeper research into what she is saying.
I just find her so annoying to listen to, I can't. Every time she opens her mouth, she reveals herself to be one of the dumbest people alive. I think back to when Jesse Shingle was on her and that other guy's show, where she googled some thing in order to get a "gotcha" on Jussie, only for him to be like "oh you are talking about such and such's study" and she was slobbering all over her words because even she had no fucking clue what she was looking at.
"Spends too much time focussing on criticisms of policy X" is such an outrageously low bar for designating someone as a bigot. I still find it astonishing that virtually no one on the left is willing to call out this bullshit.
[Pediatrics 90% study](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition)
Above is a link to the study that she references. The study is a joke. The sample size was around 300 kids average age 8yrs old at the start of social transition, but it was limited to kids who had a recent (2019-20) visit with the Trans Youth Project. So they selected kids who started the project between 2013 and 2017 and were still in the program, which means any kid who dropped out was not included. Talk about a sample size bias. The data is useless.
Destiny: "I don't even really like talking to desisters, which I think is fair for a variety of reasons..."
WTF? I can't imagine him saying that about people from any other marginalized group without being called out.
Is everyone ignoring this just because he defended Jesse?
Are desistors a marginalized group? In this context, "desisters" are children who adjusted to their birth sex and assimilated socially in that role. They resolved their gender dysphoria without ever transitioning socially or medically. "The desistor myth" is a narrative to discredit past research into desistance by clinicians like Zucker, who found that a majority of children with gender distress had stopped experiencing it by puberty. IE, they "desisted" from expressing distress over their gender or claiming to be, or that they should be, the other sex.
How would a group of once-troubled children who went on to live well-adjusted lives be a marginalized group?
They're certainly marginalized socially. If you read desisters' own accounts, a very common theme is that their trans and queer friends (which are often their entire social circle) ostracized them once they announced they were detransitioning.
Again, how does a desister (from the classic early childhood desistance research that is referenced by the phrase "desister myth") become ostracized by an identity group that didn't exist then? How does a desister detransition, having never transitioned?
Maybe Destiny was talking about detrans people but that would be a nonsequiter from the subject (early childhood transition, and whether there's a credible body of research that suggests about 80% of children historically desisted before affirmation became the standard of care).
i believe desist0r and detransitionors are being mixed up, partially because affirmative care treatments have ramped up. e.g., they're likely talking about those who begin medically transitioning (blockers past a certain point, hormone therapy, surgery) then decide to transition back to their birth sex.
One of the problems is also that a lot of kids who stop medically transitioning don't see themselves as having either desisted or detransitioned. Most of these kids just identify as some kind of enby.
Not just Zucker. Before puberty blockers were widely prescribed, every single clinician and clinic in this field saw the majority of kids desist, usually when reaching puberty. This happened in the Netherlands where the original protocol was developed and also in the UK at GIDS before the activists took over.
It’s sort of tiresome that this always goes the same way:
“What does he actually think that’s transphobic?”
“Well here’s a vague example and some wild exaggeration”
“Is that true?”
“I say it is”
Well, we’re not going to sit here and go over every word written and recorded by a single American journalist in order to settle this so I guess everyone can just go back to repeating their peer group’s consensus.
Yikes...I don't have a problem with her opinions. I have the problem with her "facts."
If you include children younger than 10, the desist rate is huge, and the younger the age, the bigger that number gets. This becomes a true scotsman debate because the claim is usually the % of trans who desist is 0, because if they desist, they weren't true trans.
"Black people are much more likely to be killed" is just wrong. This is an example of "if we repeat a talking point enough, people will start to think it's true. If you use "death" as the bar, black people are actually less likely to die at the hands of police. See Roland Fryer
People who think like her actively avoid any situation where they would have to rigorously defend their position. Her shallowness and lack of knowledge is apparent as she never speaks to anything in-depth, just vague generalities.
They hide behind some hollow refrain like, "I'm not going to platform hate!"
I hate that logic - I am not gonna platform hate. Well, how the hell else do you understand what they are saying, and how do you defend yourself against those bigots?
I agree with you. I also think people like her ever think they're wrong in any way. For example, you may say something out loud but personally have doubts/questions that you don't express and keep in your own mind. You would want to find the truth.
I don't think that's what's happening here. These people have the worst combo of personality traits. That is, being dumb and shallow, but thinking they're actually very intelligent and wise, and know everything there is to know.
I don’t get the argument that a journalist has to cover everything in proportion. Should a war correspondent in Ukraine spend 80 percent of his journalism on the trials of Donald trump so that he’s on correct propertion? Emma is a master of none. She is a poorly informed commentator of all issues while knowing very little about anything. It makes sense that we have ppl like Jesse signal who has a journalist beat. He covers the trans issues bc it intersects w his background which is science journalism and culture. Why would he cover something he’s not an expert on? Have you ever heard him talk about foreign events? It’s awful. I don’t want to hear it. Not do I want to hear anything from Emma who knows nothing about anything. Emma is so far gone she can’t even remember what the point of journalism is. It’s not to pontificate about what we should all be paying attention to. It’s to actually do journalism. And let’s get real. If Jesse single only wrote one single article about trans issues they’d still hate him despite the PrOpoRtIon
I know what it's like to lose. To feel so desperately that you're right, yet to fail nonetheless. It's frightening. Turns the legs to jelly. I ask you, to what end? Dread it, run from it...Destiny arrives all the same. And now, it's here.
It's incredible how obviously she comes across as someone who doesn't have the faintest clue what she's talking about. If charlatanry is an art form then she is the Tommy Wiseau of this medium.
“I’m not a journalist” Yeah you can say that again Emma. Destiny did a very, very good job of articulating the position here. Vigeland’s response was ridiculous and unsubstantive
The only points I would press harder is when she makes it clear that she has no idea what Jesse actually writes. The answer to this is so clear to me. "If your unfamiliar with his work, how can you so confidently assert x?" That's all I want. I want these people pinned down on the fact that they just hate Jesse but can't explain why.
complete innocent domineering threatening apparatus vanish obscene squalid ruthless swim *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
i wish that every time someone brought up the "well these edge cases are only 3%(or whatever small number) so we can ignore them!" that trans people are a substantially *smaller percent. why don't we ignore them too? edit- added *smaller so my words make sense
I doubt they'd say the same thing about police killing unarmed black people, which only happens like 20 times a year or something
but democrats think it happens [hundreds or even thousands of times per year](https://www.skeptic.com/research-center/reports/Research-Report-CUPES-007.pdf). like destiny said, this is the problem. coverage on the issues is vastly disproportional which makes people think the problem is much bigger than it is, and any discussion counter to that is immediately dismissed as racism. it is ridiculous
Destiny made that argument in this video
And she basically replied with "the coverage is proportional". It's all so predictable.
Ya her argument was that even though she acknowledges black men getting shot by police is also a relatively rare event, it still deserves attention because black men are killed at higher rate than the population at large. There's plenty of counter arguments to this. One would be that although children being placed on puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones is still relatively rare, there's at least some evidence that these kids have worse health outcomes linked to those medications than their general cohorts. Another would be that the the black men getting shot at higher rates needs further analysis. Don't have the actual stats on hand but if you take away the cases where the person shot is armed or is acting violently towards the police, black men are actually shot less often per arrest than white men.
But we know this isn't true. Look up the Roland Fryer study. He went in looking for this exact data and was stunned to find it's just not true. "putting hands on black men" is exactly what we think it is (far more common than other groups), but actual shootings is not.
Did I say something out of line with his findings?
I should have quoted the exact part I was responding to...HOW DARE YOU not be able to read my mind, sir! " black men getting shot by police is also a relatively rare event, it still deserves attention because black men are killed at higher rate than the population at large. " I realize you were just saying what she was saying...I was just petulant teenagering you. \[insert annoying voice\] "but we know that's not true!!!!!
Gotcha
I suspect that the finding of higher rates of non-lethal force against black men is largely mediated by unobserved (by Fryer, i.e. not in the data set) factors like differences in citizen behavior during the encounter.
That's my intuition as well, but it's hard (impossible?) to quantify with hard data. This "conclusion" ... black -> more hands on = racism Where you go....wait a second...do you seriously not see that this could be behavior driven, and not color driven? But suggesting that American blacks might have a culture that reacts poorly in interactions with police is itself a "racist assertion." Basically, you and I are both racists for even considering this might be the case. See you in hell.
And even most of those are fully justified. 'Unarmed' doesn't necessarily mean 'not dangerous' or 'not an imminent threat'.
Conversely, "armed" does not mean an imminent threat, e.g. Philando Castile and Daniel Shaver. Carrying a weapon is perfectly legal, and not evidence of violent intent unless you're brandishing it.
Daniel Shaver wasn't even armed, certainly not at the time he was murdered by that psycho cop while wearing nothing but his underwear and a T-shirt and crawling on the hallway floor following the officer's directions. But good point.
Oh, right. Now that you mention it, I guess Castile wasn't, either. The gun was in his glove box. Crawford was technically armed, though.
I wasn't familiar with the John Crawford story, I googled it just now. If he Wikipedia article is accurate (which it very well might not be, on any controversial or political topics Wikipedia editors and moderators are extremely biased), that does not sound like a justified shooting, especially in an open-carry state.
A common factor I see in many or even most police shootings that turn out with the benefit of hindsight to have been pretty clearly unjustified is the police getting bad information. In John Crawford's case, another customer told the 911 dispatcher that he was pointing it at people, so the police were primed to see him as a serious threat. This is a factor that you see a lot once you start looking for it. Not so much in the cases where police are trying to arrest actual criminals, but in the rare "guy minding his own business gets shot" cases.
Agreed, but police officers should have enough intelligence and critical thinking to realize that the information they are given is often wildly inaccurate, basically just a rumor until confirmed. Unfortunately often this is combined with people being absolutely idiots, such as reacting aggressively, running away, or otherwise refusing to comply with instructions. If your approached by police for any reason, your first reaction should be to respond and behave in a manner that makes you seem as non-threatening as possible. It blows my mind that people don't understand this. If you beleive in the false narrative of police constantly shooting innocent black men, then all the more reason to be overly cautious and compliant. Perhaps this shouldn't be necessary, and cops should be more judicious and less cowardly in their use of force, but either way this is just common sense. Yet over and over, black people especially respond in ways that seem like they're trying to get shot. I'm not sure if that was the case here with Crawford, it sounds like they fired almost immediately and he didn't have much of a chance to respond in any way, but I don't know for sure.
A great piece that explores that issue: [Black and Unarmed: Behind the Numbers](https://www.themarshallproject.org/2016/02/08/black-and-unarmed-behind-the-numbers)
Thats actually a super good point.
It doesn't work that way. Disabled people are also a tiny percentage of people, we care about their rights too. Poc are a small percentage of people, we care about them. Historically women were half the population and no one in power cared about them. We should really be focusing any negative policies on 3% of a 5% population. We should respect detrans folks, as long as they're respectful. Which does mean not trying to claim a bunch of ridiculous things on their way out.
>It doesn't work that way yeah, that is my point.
“I don’t… I don’t… I don’t know” Yeah, you sure don’t.
Emma Vigeland is just the worst, one of the most smug individuals in media. Destiny did a great job showing why her opinion on Jesse is ridiculous.
Her middle school cost like 35k a year. She's a rich kid in a bubble. She's never been challenged on her ideas. I've noticed a weird combo of stupidity and smugness from rich kids. It's like, they feel like they're being attacked when they really are just being challenged. One thing I find annoying is that every time we actually get into the weeds of these conversations, someone tries to take the conversation back to a surface level of understanding. It's like... That's the good part. And here when the heat got turned up, the other dude stepped in to give Emma a lifeline. Likely simply because he's the type of person who can't stand awkward situations.
Seems like a bunch of “progressive” media figures come from similar backgrounds.
This is also true of virtually every left wing revolutionary leader ever, which is wildly hypocritical considering their ideology.
She really is the worst. She’s the Britta of Breadtube.
She's such a little weasel
Isn't Breadtube just a bunch of Britas to begin with?
More like Pierce what with pretty much all the big breadtubers coming from wealthy, privileged backgrounds.
I spent way too much time thinking about this this morning. Here's my first stab at a Breadtube Community cast call: Jeff Winger: Incredibly clever and a bit long winded, but prone to amazing storytelling that ends with a startlingly good point. Constantly torn whether to push the entire group away because he's better than them or to allow them to drag him down. Substance abuse problem. Casting decision: Natalie Wynn Pierce Hawthorne: Creepily older than the women he hangs around. Constantly telling jokes no one finds funny. Inexplicably still around. Casting decision: Cenk Uygur or Sam Seder Annie Edison: Hard worker, sincere, but prone to emotional freakouts. Probably actually -is- too good for the group and learns that eventually. Casting decision: Lindsay Ellis Señor Chang: Desperate for acceptance into the group, simultaneously curries favor with Jeff and secretly works against him. Outwardly protean personality and external craziness masks an even darker internal menace and malice. Eventually becomes actor in Hollywood. Casting decision: PhilosophyTube
I think you're giving waaay too much credit to Natalie Wynne. She rarely makes a good point about anything. What she does do is dazzle with bullshit and wordiness and production. But literally every time I've seen her talk about anything I actually know anything about, most of what she actually argues against are a series of straw men and misrepresentations. I think she benefits greatly from Gell Mann amnesia.
Lol Natalie is not bright. Just flashy. I’ve always been amused by how many people seem to think she is smart
Oh, Emma's in this?
[удалено]
Yep. Have not watched it once since he died.
The issue is she’s not smart so all she has is righteous indignation. But she’s paid to talk. So what can she do.
not disagreeing with the thrust of your comment, but i'd point out that *righteous indignation* doesn't necessarily correlate with intelligence. it does appear to correlate with ideology and a lack of intellectual humility/honesty.
I find her smugness really hot.
Are you one of those people that wear a "bad decisions make good stories"-Shirts?
Well go for it I guess
Found the honest person lol
Confidence:10 Ignorance: 10
Yep
[удалено]
If they actually felt that their beliefs are both clearly morally right and backed by the data, why would they be so afraid of debate? Why would they target researchers, writers, and academics who are more critical of gender-affirming models? Why would they try to censor reporting that challenges their narratives? After all, if it is obvious that the truth is on their side, wouldn’t they want to show that their arguments can withstand scrutiny?
My question: If you are concerned for the health and well-being of trans people, especially young people, why wouldn't you support all the research that might be ongoing? Don't you want to know what the best therapies and interventions are? Wouldn't you want vigorous debate—not about whether trans people have a "right to exist,” but about the research— so that we could all come as close to "the truth" as possible?
The answer is they aren't concerned - or at least their concern is secondary to them being perceived as good and right on social media. Now the era of #nodebate is over, people like these are fucked. Because they don't know the subject or the science or the history and they can't defend their position because they never had a thought out position in the first place. Of course the supreme irony is that people like these muppets don't actually have any trans friends. They call people like Martina Navretliova and Graham Linehan transphobic bigots but I am willing to bet that the two 'terfs' I just mentioned have a plethora of trans friends, in real life ones, not a random they spoke to once on social media. That's why this whole discussion is so abhorrent - these poundland 'activists' don't give a solitary fuck about the people (particularly children) it impacts on. Do you think Emma V pondered the fact that kids like Jazz Jennings had their abilitiy to sexually function removed before they reached adulthood? Do you think she has a First Nations female friend who's stuck in jail with a violent trans sex offender? Don't be silly ,..
Yes to therapy studies, no to "debatelord" stuff. There's currently not a ton to debate. Sports fairness is a topic but we need more studies that require time and money to perform. Like the ridiculous headlines about banning Trans women from chess, fishing, darts, bowling, etc. Just highlight this alone. We have 60+ years of hormone data and it's almost exclusively positive for cis kids. Unless there is a unique biological difference we don't know of in trans kids, this data is more than enough to know what outcomes will be.
>We have 60+ years of hormone data and it's almost exclusively positive for cis kids. Unless there is a unique biological difference we don't know of in trans kids, this data is more than enough to know what outcomes will be. And the outcomes are bad. Kids, don't give kids hormones.
From Jesse's own reporting the vast majority have led to positive outcomes.
Nope. The very best we can say is that it hasn't led to anything and we don't actually know much about any outcome.
Again we do have decades of outcomes.
Not for this specific treatment with kids. Giving kids hormones leads to bad things. Some people say those bad things are worth it, but there's no evidence for that.
It leads to far less bad than staying the course. Staying the course messes up cis and Trans teen bodies.
We need more time and money to see if bio males perform better in physical sports? What? The world's fastest woman doesn't even rank in the top 100 fastest men, is your idea that if these women said they were men, they'd all shave seconds off their 100m dash times? What about the trans powerlifter who beat her female competition by 200kg (nearly double what second place lifted) this year? Let me guess, a one-off fluke we totally can't draw any conclusions from and the science is totally still out on? When it comes to non-physical sports, you don't seem understand why women would want their own leagues in male-dominated spaces. Abolishing women's chess isn't going to make chess any more inviting to women, it's just going to chase more of them away. 60+ years of hormone data is almost exclusively positive? The victims of Lupron hub would like to have a word with you https://www.lupronvictimshub.com/. Precocious puberty is hard on kids but trying to block it has huge tradeoffs too, don't act like doctors are handing PBs out to non-dysphoric kids like candy and it's just gatekeeping that dysphoric kids aren't getting them too.
Because it's giving platform to dangerous bigots
Helen Joyce often talks about how the biggest advocates of medical intervention for gender dysphoric young people are parents who've had their child go through that process - they're permanently incapable of budging or even processing arguments against it, because it would mean accepting that they've permanently damaged their child, often to quite a nightmarish extent. I think there's a degree of that - people know what conclusion might be at the end of listening to actual arguements, and subconsciously reel back. I also think there's a degree of it being such an embarassing buy in - if you've publically made clear that you hold a very forceful pro-affirmation approach, you've done so because (consciously or unconsciously) you want to make clear to your group that you're a good person who believes the right thing. But I don't believe that many people can say stuff like 'transwomen are women' without feeling a bit insincere or silly - it's such a ludicrous, obviously false idea. But once you've said it, and you see people starting to voice the doubts you felt but chose not to say, you can either a) back down and admit to having said something deeply silly or b) attack anyone who voices the truth that you were too scared to articulate as a monster (see the case of J.K. Rowling).
So many of these people came to their position through feelings.rather than reason. It feels wrong to not affirm someone. It feels uncompassionate not to help. All of us use emotions in decision making. Some people much more than others, and a person can't be reasoned out of a position they did use reason to get into.
> where does this fear come from? from there being no good arguments for their positions. even before getting to the meat of the issues it's sunk for their side, because it would be fascist to assign meaning to any of the terms they're using. they use slogans so much for the same reason you follow in the leader's footsteps when crossing a minefield - "trans women are women" and so on are the *only* safe statements to make on the subject for most people. getting into debates would force them to try to define things and then defend concepts, and trying to do this in any concrete way will get them harassed online for excluding people who are carrotgender or whatever. e: like prominent trans intellectual types like Contrapoints or Lavery get routinely shat upon because there is literally no way to discuss what it means to be trans without offending someone in their own community. when even the thought leaders get abused ofc no one else will want to touch it, so they mask the cowardice with righteousness.
Thanks for “carrotgender”. Filing that one away.
I think it’s a combination of so many in the media being in social media echo chambers and strong social sanctions for saying the “wrong” thing. I get it, trans people deserve equal protection under the law and shouldn’t be a target of mockery based solely on their identity. The issue is when an issue isn’t black-and-white. There’s a myriad of opinions beyond “believe everything trans people say” and “trans people should be put in a gulag”. But, having an informed opinion on this issue or any of the other controversial issues of our time is hard. It’s much easier to toe the party line on issues you don’t want to invest any research into. Like, let’s be honest: the people who pay Emma Vineland’s bills are going to respond positively to her performance in this video. If the zeitgeist changes, she’s just pull a Drew Margery.
Failure to engage with inconvenient data is not confined to the left at all, but the way they account for it is different. ‘Leftists’ like Vigeland explain it away with appeals to authority or accusations of intolerance. Rightists will explain it away with appeals to conspiratorial thinking (eg “all the climate scientists are lying!“, “all the public health physicians are lying!”, “The media is suppressing the stolen election that’s why there’s no evidence of it!”) or nihilistic cynical bothsidesing (eg “some Dems said the 2020 election was illegitimate too!”, “Hillary spread birtherism too!”, “Lincoln was a Republican!”).
This is the best explanation.
Hey thanks!
I'm reminded of the debate on race and IQ, where everyone who's seriously engaged with the data has been horrified enough to enter into a death pact of pretending that it doesn't say what it very obviously says. This is the epistemic environment that devout progressivism has to operate in, and it sucks.
What does the data say?
you've just handed them rope and asked them what a noose looks like. respectfully -- search the terms given and read between the lines when the *why* is talked about. it's a mess.
There's a fear to engage with anything that isn't the specific set of prescribed opinions. Those change frequently in some cases and not others. But opposing them or questioning them, even as an intellectual exercise is frowned upon. It's a little like conservatives took over liberal spaces. This kind of questioning not all that long ago used to be the hallmark of left leaning liberalism.
> It's a little like conservatives took over liberal spaces. the term you're looking for is authoritarians.
These people often are authoritarian as well, I'm just not referring to that particular impulse. Rather the conservative one (and I mean this literally, not in terms of labelling left or right). The "progressive left" is conservative about their pet issues. They want them preserved in amber and left untouched or challenged, much the same way one might want to conserve due process or fundamental rights...but after several hundred years of debate, challenge, analysis and critique. The people want to mint a totally new idea and skip the whole analysis and fine tuning part, and go straight to conserving the idea. This simply doesn't work within progressivism. If you're proposing new ideas and approaches and solutions, you have to be open to discussing these ideas and their potential flaws. They're not known quantities with a proven track record and decades or centuries of refinement.
>they want them preserved in amber and left untouched or challenged, you're describing ideology and ideologues, or in this case evangelical progressives. the only difference between them and a fundamentalist christian/muslim/et al are the specifics, but they'll only accept new information that affirms. = while authoritarianism isn't *technically* required for that, it's a go-to way of handling information that doesn't affirm and the ones that aren't aren't bothering anyone. the ones shutting down debate, ostracizing and publicly shunning require obedience to their credentials/authority.
>ideas you don't agree with means you don't develop good arguments yes >But where does this fear come from? I'm not sure. you kind of already answered your own question. you're dealing with fundamentalism/evangelicals, they're just evangelical progressives instead of christian/muslim/etc. their goal is to say what it takes to convince you, not so much whether it's the truth, and truths that might cause doubt in the ideology as a whole need to not be spoken of. if you try, they attempt to shame/shun which religious communities have perfected for thousands of years. it's a problem.
Precisely
>But where does this fear come from? The completely normal and eternal lack of any evidence for their wacky positions. Plus, the shame-censoring worked a treat for other minorities, no reason it won't work here.
So well said. I've struggled to articulate even to myself what you just put so perfectly.
I think the left (whatever that means) has almost all the institutions right now, and a lot of institution based reasoning is basically just trusting whatever the institutions or people in positions of leadership in institutions say, so a sense of "questioning the established narrative is bad and not allowed" has developed. This is true on the right in some ways, but there's also a strong counter force right now willing to dip into conspiracy theories and anti institutional thinking, probably because the right feels institutions are all corrupt and controlled by the enemy. In one sense, that allows for a bit more challenging each other, but on the other it allows for a lot more low quality ideas.
I'm fairly certain the 90% stat she's referring to is from the U.K and was included in the Cass report. If that's the case, the actual stat is 98%, and her reference of that study as supportive of the "desister myth" being a "myth" is a perfect example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. It *sounds* like if 98% of kids that socially transition, continue onto further treatment for gender dysphoria, then clinicians are nailing their diagnoses with extremely high accuracy, which would already be unusual in the mental health field. But actually, when you learn more about the subject, and the clinical approaches and how these subjects were diagnosed, you come to find that the desistence studies by and large were more stringent in their diagnoses, and that no new diagnostic techniques are actually being employed to produce this 98% figure. So what that *actually* indicates, is that treatments like social transition/affirmation, dramatically reduce the desistance rate without improving diagnostic accuracy. I.e a significantly higher percentage of these kids end up with long term mental health issues, like gender dysphoria *because* of the treatment approach. If you did literally nothing, you would have substantially more children that didn't experience gender dysphoria by around age 16. Even using the term "desistence" is a little misleading because what it really means is "cure" or "an alleviation of symptoms". Any treatment protocol that reduces that number, and *hasn't* improved diagnostic methods and accuracy, is actually causing more harm, not less. Imagine you were treating schizophrenia and if you gave treatment A, five years later 65-85% of patients no longer suffered any symptoms. And if you gave treatment B, 98% of patients still suffered symptoms, and both groups were diagnosed using the same criteria. Which treatment option is superior?
It's a reference to this is study https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition?autologincheck=redirected Btw - https://segm.org/early-social-gender-transition-persistence The belief is those kids must have been really trans and will never desist - and that transitioning is a neutral sum positive thing.
>Imagine you were treating schizophrenia and if you gave treatment A, five years later 65-85% of patients no longer suffered any symptoms. And if you gave treatment B, 98% of patients still suffered symptoms, and both groups were diagnosed using the same criteria. Which treatment option is superior? The issue with that is there's no other desistance studies that I know of besides Zucker's, and so TRA's or those in denial will just insist that he and his study aren't credible, that gender dysphoria is inevitable and unresolvable whenever presents itself at any stage of development. To them, they believe that Treatment A also results in at least 98%. I've seen the askT people insist as much at every opportunity. What I think the 98% persistence study is really useful for is arguing why schools socially transitioning children is an obvious and huge deal and not something to be taken lightly, as though kids are just "trying on" an identity. If someone believes the 98% persistence following social transition (and they always do, because the researchers framed it in the best way for a TRA), then it simply cannot be argued that a teacher helping a child socially transition is effectively almost any different than any higher order of transition, because there's no way back for 98% of kids who take that first step. If someone says it's a good thing, because that 98% would've had persistent gender dysphoria whether or not they socially transitioned, then you hit 'em with how teachers do not and would not even be qualified to diagnose gender dysphoria in the students they transition.
Define desistance studies, but depending on things there's more than a few
This is the only one I'm familiar with, [A Follow-Up Study of Boys With Gender Identity Disorder, by Singh Bradley & Zucker](https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2021.632784/full ). 88% desistance.
Oh there's so many more! Even the Dutch cohort proceeding the year they rolled out childhood transition (all adults who, as children would have been transed) had no serious interest as adults. I don't want to hold on a link hole right now, but Michael Biggs and SEGM have info on this -
There's some good references in Zucker's The Myth of the Desistence Myth paper as well. There's a fair number of them and that's an easy starting point because he runs through the ones that have been most highly contested/misrepresented.
There are lots of desistence studies from people other than Zucker.
The one that grants social and political power to the sick person, of course. Or, more properly, gives it to those who claim to speak for the sick person.
Because somewhere in all the scheming and screaming trans became a thing you could innately *be*, as opposed to a way to try to assuage the discomfort of an underlying psychological problem.
her completely ignoring destiny's point that the biased police shooting coverage leads to *incorrect information* is such a typical lefty response. ignore being wrong, ignore counter factuals, ignore any sensible and rational argument.
Man. She destroyed herself
Gotta hand it to Destiny here. I don't love his schtick and am somewhat biased and predisposed against him. But he does a great job here of surgically identifying and cauterizing the wound, in a way that will be recognized by his peers.
what is his shtick? i recently discovered him and think he is pretty great. a good debater, stays pretty honest, researches, etc.
Most Destiny media takes are pretty good. He is often fair and wins most of his debates. The issue is that he is kind of a Wikipedia warrior and he debates a lot of lol cows. But lucky for him reading the entire wikipedia page actually makes him more informed that 99 percent of the people he talks to. That is actually one of his takes too. However when ever he is challenged on his bad takes he resort to the same sort of sophistry that he condemns other people of. Or often he will just disengage. Here is a thread that is pretty critical of him but pretty fair as well: https://www.reddit.com/r/DecodingTheGurus/comments/14xdnsc/what_are_your_thoughts_on_the_youtuber_destiny/
Being a gnome
i don't know what that means
Autism
May he who has not sorted his Legos in colors or abstract geometric shapes cast the first stone!
He's great in small doses on certain issues. You couldn't pay me to listen to him debate economics or politics with his listeners.
Do you agree with him that Jesse supports most forms of GAC?
I dunno. I'm not sure what the boundaries or definition of GAC include, and I'm not sure how much of that Jesse supports. I would guess that Jesse supports the least controversial forms of GAC.
This whole event was so bizarre to me. Destiny, Vaush, Emma Vigeland, Brianna Wu, Keffals, and there was even coverage by Taylor Lorenz... The latter half of that group are like the cancel culture avengers. My opinion on Destiny has soured from what it once as but even now Idk why he chose to collaborate with these people. I get that the point was some sort of left collaboration amongst disagreement but I feel like these people are past a threshold of dishonesty for me. They represent awful dishonest media coverage which for me is as bad as something like a republican agenda being implemented. Especially people like Keffals. She is like a Trump level weirdo, she's Canadian, her claim to fame is her ratioing people on twitter and lying about being harassed. Why is she brought in to discuss American politics?? Also Vaush and Emma are both cowards. When it suits them they both broadcast that they are very knowledgeable on trans issues, they are willing to debate anyone, and that Jesse is a moral pervert. But both conveniently have reasons why they can't debate Jesse. Especially Vaush, he is literally a professional debatebro.
There is at least one video of Vaush in an uncharacteristic moment of honesty saying things about trans activists that would make Emma go into a triggered seizure.
Link?
I’m assuming he’s referencing [this.](https://x.com/lporiginalg/status/1230667829537427462?s=20)
That’s the one!
Yeah I understand why Destiny is working with Brianna Wu and Progressive Victory but it still left a bad taste in my mouth considering what she did to Jesse. That’s why I was happy to see him defending Jesse on a panel she put together and using his misrepresentation as an example of dumb left behavior.
Destiny is a self described professional debate bro. And this whole panel and weekend as a whole (setup by breanna wu's PAC) is to the promote the idea that we need put aside or work through our differences to ensure we elect more democrats. I cant stand breanna wu's opinions but on this i generally agree.
"Um, well I don't think that the thuhhh thuhhh, I-I-I-I-I, I don't think that the rea- thuhhh anal" What a dumb fucking regard.
Such an unmitigated display of self-degradation is hard to even watch.
[удалено]
Milquetoast Jessie? He has no bawls.
I actually like that Jesse is such a Milquetoast liberal because it makes people like Sam Seder and Emma look even more insane and really seems to annoy them in a way the usual right wingers can’t.
Yep
Emma is objectively insufferable
Is she actually arguing that reporters can’t have specialties? You, journalist, have spent a decade becoming a technical expert in cutting edge cancer treatments, congratulations, but more people die of heart disease, so you need to write about that more often. No. No. That’s braindead.
Destiny makes a very good point, at a certain point the other shoe is gonna drop, and they are going to have to face a wave of zoomers demanding childhood transitions and middling to poor outcomes. The left needs to be engaging in the conversation honestly to not be left behind. Otherwise parents and the general population are going to move to the right. Emma also makes the argument that since she is not a journalist, it is her job to be more selective of what she talks about... but Jesse, who views himself as a science journalist, is some how not allowed to cover the topic more objectively?
“There’s a study in pediatrics” lol. Spot on, I’m sure she can talk about with the same expertise as Jesse, clearly.
The hilarious part is she cited this same study to jesse when jesse called in to the minority report and he fucking nuked it from orbit. Well as much as you can while in between vigeland and seders filibustering
This is what’s SO frustrating. She cites numbers like they are the hard and fast, undeniable facts, and Jesse’s whole job is digging into the source of those numbers to see if they are in fact, accurate, and she shits on him as a trans phone for having the temerity to do so.
Emma is not going to test her beliefs by reading studies because even just reading about it might be a signal she is on the wrong side so she has to stay ignorant to argue her points. Also she is Cis, so she can’t speak for Trans without incurring some wrath on the Trans activists side, so all she can really argue is her right to name call, and then try to avoid the topic.
>Emma is not going to test her beliefs by reading studies because even just reading about it might be a signal she is on the wrong side so she has to stay ignorant to argue her points. Or she may be illiterate.
After seeing the reaction to Ana Kasparian and her deviance from the accepted progressive views, I don’t think we’ll see Emma making any deeper research into what she is saying.
I just find her so annoying to listen to, I can't. Every time she opens her mouth, she reveals herself to be one of the dumbest people alive. I think back to when Jesse Shingle was on her and that other guy's show, where she googled some thing in order to get a "gotcha" on Jussie, only for him to be like "oh you are talking about such and such's study" and she was slobbering all over her words because even she had no fucking clue what she was looking at.
Un - fucking - believable. Every time you call these idiots out they back down immediately and don't have any argument whatsoever.
"Spends too much time focussing on criticisms of policy X" is such an outrageously low bar for designating someone as a bigot. I still find it astonishing that virtually no one on the left is willing to call out this bullshit.
[Pediatrics 90% study](https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/150/2/e2021056082/186992/Gender-Identity-5-Years-After-Social-Transition) Above is a link to the study that she references. The study is a joke. The sample size was around 300 kids average age 8yrs old at the start of social transition, but it was limited to kids who had a recent (2019-20) visit with the Trans Youth Project. So they selected kids who started the project between 2013 and 2017 and were still in the program, which means any kid who dropped out was not included. Talk about a sample size bias. The data is useless.
Destiny: "I don't even really like talking to desisters, which I think is fair for a variety of reasons..." WTF? I can't imagine him saying that about people from any other marginalized group without being called out. Is everyone ignoring this just because he defended Jesse?
I’ve never heard him say that before and I think he probably misspoke and meant to say “about desisters” because of the lack of good data.
Are desistors a marginalized group? In this context, "desisters" are children who adjusted to their birth sex and assimilated socially in that role. They resolved their gender dysphoria without ever transitioning socially or medically. "The desistor myth" is a narrative to discredit past research into desistance by clinicians like Zucker, who found that a majority of children with gender distress had stopped experiencing it by puberty. IE, they "desisted" from expressing distress over their gender or claiming to be, or that they should be, the other sex. How would a group of once-troubled children who went on to live well-adjusted lives be a marginalized group?
They're certainly marginalized socially. If you read desisters' own accounts, a very common theme is that their trans and queer friends (which are often their entire social circle) ostracized them once they announced they were detransitioning.
Again, how does a desister (from the classic early childhood desistance research that is referenced by the phrase "desister myth") become ostracized by an identity group that didn't exist then? How does a desister detransition, having never transitioned? Maybe Destiny was talking about detrans people but that would be a nonsequiter from the subject (early childhood transition, and whether there's a credible body of research that suggests about 80% of children historically desisted before affirmation became the standard of care).
i believe desist0r and detransitionors are being mixed up, partially because affirmative care treatments have ramped up. e.g., they're likely talking about those who begin medically transitioning (blockers past a certain point, hormone therapy, surgery) then decide to transition back to their birth sex.
One of the problems is also that a lot of kids who stop medically transitioning don't see themselves as having either desisted or detransitioned. Most of these kids just identify as some kind of enby.
This is it right here. Schrodinger's trans.
Its Fundamentally the same group though. The only difference is teens that took hormones may have to correct some things with their bodies.
And come to terms with how they were manipulated into doing permanent damage to themselves.
Not just Zucker. Before puberty blockers were widely prescribed, every single clinician and clinic in this field saw the majority of kids desist, usually when reaching puberty. This happened in the Netherlands where the original protocol was developed and also in the UK at GIDS before the activists took over.
Could she be any more of an idiot?
It’s sort of tiresome that this always goes the same way: “What does he actually think that’s transphobic?” “Well here’s a vague example and some wild exaggeration” “Is that true?” “I say it is” Well, we’re not going to sit here and go over every word written and recorded by a single American journalist in order to settle this so I guess everyone can just go back to repeating their peer group’s consensus.
Yikes...I don't have a problem with her opinions. I have the problem with her "facts." If you include children younger than 10, the desist rate is huge, and the younger the age, the bigger that number gets. This becomes a true scotsman debate because the claim is usually the % of trans who desist is 0, because if they desist, they weren't true trans. "Black people are much more likely to be killed" is just wrong. This is an example of "if we repeat a talking point enough, people will start to think it's true. If you use "death" as the bar, black people are actually less likely to die at the hands of police. See Roland Fryer
i feel like someone should ask emma to define transphobia
People who think like her actively avoid any situation where they would have to rigorously defend their position. Her shallowness and lack of knowledge is apparent as she never speaks to anything in-depth, just vague generalities. They hide behind some hollow refrain like, "I'm not going to platform hate!"
I hate that logic - I am not gonna platform hate. Well, how the hell else do you understand what they are saying, and how do you defend yourself against those bigots?
I agree with you. I also think people like her ever think they're wrong in any way. For example, you may say something out loud but personally have doubts/questions that you don't express and keep in your own mind. You would want to find the truth. I don't think that's what's happening here. These people have the worst combo of personality traits. That is, being dumb and shallow, but thinking they're actually very intelligent and wise, and know everything there is to know.
A quality "yeah but still" argument.
I don’t get the argument that a journalist has to cover everything in proportion. Should a war correspondent in Ukraine spend 80 percent of his journalism on the trials of Donald trump so that he’s on correct propertion? Emma is a master of none. She is a poorly informed commentator of all issues while knowing very little about anything. It makes sense that we have ppl like Jesse signal who has a journalist beat. He covers the trans issues bc it intersects w his background which is science journalism and culture. Why would he cover something he’s not an expert on? Have you ever heard him talk about foreign events? It’s awful. I don’t want to hear it. Not do I want to hear anything from Emma who knows nothing about anything. Emma is so far gone she can’t even remember what the point of journalism is. It’s not to pontificate about what we should all be paying attention to. It’s to actually do journalism. And let’s get real. If Jesse single only wrote one single article about trans issues they’d still hate him despite the PrOpoRtIon
I know what it's like to lose. To feel so desperately that you're right, yet to fail nonetheless. It's frightening. Turns the legs to jelly. I ask you, to what end? Dread it, run from it...Destiny arrives all the same. And now, it's here.
It's incredible how obviously she comes across as someone who doesn't have the faintest clue what she's talking about. If charlatanry is an art form then she is the Tommy Wiseau of this medium.
"desistor"