All purpose news and politics thread part VII: News & Politics Total Landscaping

[Dalak]

...you literally illustrated in your quote that you were wrong. People who identify as genderqueer, agender, genderfluid, gender noncofroming, non-binary or intersex are not trans, so a study that tries to lump those identifications together is wrong.

It's staggeringly simple.

I know a non-binary, gender-fluid AMAB person who wouldn't call themselves trans at all, and has no interest in HRT.

F1nnster, a well known streamer, recently came out as gender-fluid specifically, and specifically avoided the trans label even while supporting trans charities and starting HRT.

Another person I know online only realized that they were trans after a stop at non-binary. For many people, such as Nex Benedict, they may come out as non-binary to themselves or their family as a step along the way to acknowledging being trans.

All of this is to say it's very complicated, and assigning 'transness' to people who describe themselves as gender fluid or non-binary is a mistake.

It definitely is, my future brother in law for instance describes themselves as gender-nonconforming. He wears what on a woman would typically be called a "tasteful" amount of makeup, not emo or goth, just natural toned foundation, light eye shadow,non-dramatic eyeliner, mascara and nude lipstick...and he's a straight guy engaged to my sister. He's definitely in the minority in that he isn't gay and self identifies as gender-nonconforming, but he's definitely not alone so it really just illustrates that it's VERY silly to lump these various groups of people under any single umbrella other than human.

You're always seem to pride yourself on wanting to be correct and accurate Mets, this seems like a very obvious case where you definitely were not. Why not own that?

When you're asking people to assess their identities under these options, how they assess themselves is important. The lack of context in the This Week article is important, especially when it's working to help stir the pot on an anti-trans Abigail-Shrier based piece of BS.

Thank you both for providing a bit of logic to this debate. We're currently looking at someone cutting off evidence of an argument more than a year ago when it has been shown to evolve because of constant reinterpretations of language and classification I maintain were to confuse the issue - It's clear he understood what my actual argument is and thus all of this sound & fury signifies nothing. This behavior is coming from someone who says they focus on being factually correct and the specifics of a situation, while accusing me of Trolling to the point of posting a Do Not Feed The Trolls pic. In fact it's the exact post he accused me of making about him, which is about the only time I've gotten him to admit he was wrong about something.

I really don't think such gross & foolish behavior deserves a serious response, considering I apologized to any Transgender individuals I may have offended and not one has stepped forward saying they have been upset by my posts. Mets still hasn't done that after referring to Gender Reassignment Surgery as Mutilation as far as I remember, after he brought it up himself initially and continued to use it while claiming it was because Fact Checkers didn't bring it up.

Yeah, except the "study" was garbage and it even admits it by literally saying the results can't actually be applied with any accuracy to the population at large. But heck, even if that wasn't outright admitted it's the obvious conclusion by anyone with any knowledge of polling.

It's flawed from the start as they selected the 615 athletes they sent the questionnaire. Who did the selecting? What were the criteria? What was the geographic spread?
The answer?
We don't know...which is problematic, if you're attempting to say the results are typical. And there's a lot more we don't know like: what were the respondents ages? Where do they live? How do they self identify politically? Are they college educated?
Without those filters you can't tell if the sample presents an accurate cross section of the population which again is problematic if you're attempting to paint a picture of the larger population.

And then there's the very issue that the questionnaire was sent by mail, which is limiting. Who opens unsolicited mail? Older people, not younger people so you're going to skew your responses.

And finally, of the 615 sent the survey only 143 people responded. And because there were no filters we have no idea how representative even that small population is.

It's frankly silly that the survey was even published, and sillier still that you think it means anything even though it admits that no broader conclusions should be drawn from the responses given.

All of the talk on these 40 year old Puberty Blockers is interesting, as it not only reveals individual's news sources and what they consider valid/invalid in that regard but it also shows where people are closer to conservative arguments than they portray their beliefs. Big Tents include extremists & moderates after all, but I thought the UK had more focused parties where that wasn't as much of an issue.

Outrage as Saudi Arabia picked to head women's rights forum.

Yeah, talk about the fox guarding the henhouse.

It's like certain people aren't even trying anymore, as they see how bigots of all stripe don't really have to hide it anymore.

Why Trump gets away with so much, while others get prison time.

A very good video IMO. I'll need to check out the other you posted. EE: Oops, seems like the second one was a video I not only watched but replied to. Still important and informative for anyone who wants to be factual & correct on the subject.

E:

You're still very obviously in the wrong...and again, it's right in the articles you're presenting. "People in the transgender community may describe themselves using one (or more) of a wide variety of terms" "May" does not mean must or always, it means sometimes or possibly. Again, for someone who prides themselves on being correct and accurate this seems like a strange oversight.

Building on that, what you're doing, and the person who presented the study in the Week did, is presenting a false syllogism.

Premise 1: Trans people may also identify as genderqueer, non-binary, gender-nonconforming or genderfluid.

Premise 2: This study shows a percentage break down of various titles such as genderqueer, non-binary, gender-nonconforming.

Conclusion: Therefore the total percentage of the study is trans.

The flaw? Not everyone who identifies as genderqueer, non-binary or gender-nonconforming identifies as trans so thus you cannot logically reach your presented conclusion.

And there is no indication that people who may identify solely as genderqueer, non-binary, or gender-nonconforming would be targeted if they're not protected under the umbrella of trans rights as they're still protected under the larger umbrellas of gay rights and basic human rights. But that's rather superfluous, as you wanting to include them under the number of trans individuals so they are better protected comes across solely as a deflection as you haven't illustrated that you value the protection of trans rights to begin with.

If you were to say, "Trans rights are human rights, and using terms like mutilation to describe gender affirming care is wrong." maybe we could entertain your argument about broader legal protections...but without that,no it's a very obvious deflection and nothing more.

I appreciate the attempt, but we'll see if you are talking to the same brick wall I've been interacting with for so long.

[Catlady in training]

War a real threat and Europe not ready, warns Poland's Tusk

Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk has delivered a blunt warning that Europe has entered a "pre-war era" and if Ukraine is defeated by Russia, nobody in Europe will be able to feel safe.

"I don't want to scare anyone, but war is no longer a concept from the past," he told European media. "It's real and it started over two years ago."

His remarks came as a fresh barrage of Russian missiles targeted Ukraine.

Russia has intensified its bombardment of Ukraine in recent weeks.

Ukraine's air force said it had shot down 58 drones and 26 missiles and Prime Minister Denys Shmyhal said energy infrastructure had been damaged in six regions, in the west, centre and east of the country.

Mr Tusk, a former president of the European Council, said Russian President Vladimir Putin had already blamed Ukraine for the jihadist attack on Moscow's Crocus City Hall without any evidence and "evidently feels the need to justify increasingly violent attacks on civil targets in Ukraine".

He pointed out that Russia had attacked Kyiv with hypersonic missiles in daylight for the first time earlier this week.

He used his first foreign interview since returning to office as Polish prime minister at the end of last year to deliver a direct appeal to Europe's leaders to do more to bolster its defences.

Regardless of whether Joe Biden or Donald Trump won November's US presidential election, he argued Europe would become a more attractive partner to the US if it became more self-sufficient militarily.

It was not about Europe achieving military autonomy from the US or creating "parallel structures to Nato", he said. Poland now spent 4% of its economic output on defence and every other European country should spend 2% of GDP, with the European Union as a whole mentally prepared to fight for its security.

Since Russia launched its full-scale war in Ukraine, relations with the West have reached their lowest ebb since the worst days of the Cold War, although President Putin said this week that Moscow had "no aggressive intentions" towards Nato countries.

The idea that his country would attack Poland, the Baltic states and the Czech Republic was "complete nonsense", he said. And yet he also warned that if Ukraine used Western F-16 warplanes from airfields in other countries, they would become "legitimate targets, wherever they might be located".

This is not Mr Tusk's first warning of a pre-war era. He gave centre-right European leaders a similar message earlier this month.

However, he revealed that Spain's Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, had asked fellow EU leaders to stop using the word "war" in their summit statements, because people did not want to feel threatened. Mr Tusk said he had replied that in his part of Europe, war was no longer an abstract idea.

Appealing for urgent military aid for Ukraine, he warned that the next two years of the war would decide everything: "We are living in the most critical moment since the end of the Second World War."

What was most worrying now, he told journalists from some of Europe's biggest newspapers, was that "literally any scenario is possible".

He remembered a photo on the wall of his family home in Poland that showed people laughing on a beach at Sopot, near Gdansk where he was born, on the southern Baltic coast.

The image was from 31 August 1939, he said, then a dozen hours later and 5km (three miles) away, World War Two began.

"I know it sounds devastating, especially to people of the younger generation, but we have to mentally get used to the arrival of a new era. The pre-war era," he warned.

Despite his chilling remarks, Mr Tusk was more optimistic about what he called a real revolution in mentality across Europe.

When he was Polish prime minister for the first time, from 2007 to 2014, he said few other European leaders beyond Poland and the Baltic states realised Russia was a potential threat.

He praised several European leaders and highlighted the importance of security co-operation between Poland, France and Germany - an alliance known as the Weimar Triangle. And he pointed to Sweden and Finland, once paragons of pacifism and neutrality but now members of Nato.

[Mister Mets]

The next time the argument comes up is in February, during a discussion on other stuff.

We've been active on this thread and earlier iterations for years, so you should recognize the nastiest comments people have made in this thread and earlier iterations, typically without getting called out on it by others. That's what I mean when I talk about personal insults.

For example, I've been told I should seek professional therapy because I didn't think it was obvious that a Congressman's statement about punishing people who commit crimes against Asian-Americans is obviously a coded message to racists about supporting violence against African-Americans.

That's not about being asked partisan questions or about bigotry or the shortcomings of the party.

I get the understanding that it's not an individual's responsibility to point out when people on their side are rude. There's a view that commentators should essentially be advocates and lawyers for their side, never giving credibility to any concerns from anyone else. It's not a view I share, but I understand it, although if it works at all, it has to be done openly.

Not to downplay your feelings but that kind of comment seems like something that you shouldn't take too seriously -- like I tell kids when someone says something they don't like: if it's not true then call it out or don't worry about it.

I respect your perspective on the issue but ultimately a lot of these problems could be avoided if you just used facts to back up your opinions rather than complaining or deflecting from the topic.

I'll leave that as my final advice on the matter -- it's really up to you to make those choices, which in the long run would make for much more productive engagment.

From my perspective though it gets tiring providing dozens of links worth of evidence only to have someone repeatedly find ways not to address them directly -- so I'm done with it.

I am still cross about the reaction to an anodyne comment that a Congressman probably wasn't intending to make a racist dog whistle about lynching.

This post includes a reference to a proposed bill.

It's not about my feelings, but whether it's worth trying to engage in a discussion on sensitive issues with a group of people. And if the argument is that I shouldn't take them too seriously, what's the point of any discussion if people aren't supposed to taken at their word? I understand that some people are doing something else like signaling that they're on the right side, although when people are saying stuff that should not be taken literally, I'll point that out. It also suggests they don't take the topic seriously if it's just a partisan cudgel.

I do think I defend my opinions with facts. I'm likely to quote sources. If I respond to a point, I'm often looking at the full context and will include relevant links.

One fundamental difference which I'm sure we've argued about before, is that I go narrower, while you're more big picture. By focusing on the specifics of a situation, it's easier for me to have all the relevant facts at hand. The bigger the question, the greater the number of relevant facts (which may necessitate more research), to say nothing of potential differing first principles, where it's no longer a matter of facts, but about areas where reasonable people can disagree.



If a majority of Republicans in a legislature pass a bill that stupid, I'll agree that the kind of lunacy is the norm for the party.
That's not the case right now. We're looking at backbenchers in a state legislature.

It's not just that it would pass (it won't) it's that it would be put forward at all, and that impetus matches the general anti-science attitude of the party. This isn't something that came out of no where, it's the kind of thing that is bred by the general tone of the party as a whole.

Dalak uses this as a chance to talk about me.

It doesn't matter if it did pass, he'd deny for another reason like he'll deny the GoP is Anti-Trans despite lots of obviously bigoted legislation passed across the country. Like he denied how much the GoP lies more than the Dems, and how he'd deny that many GoP support domestic terrorists, and anything else necessary to carry on as he has been. In current posts and past ones he's clearly shown that he'll stand by false/bad evidence and ignore any that disagrees if it's convenient time after time.



Yes you are right, thank you for another example of why not to respond to Mets seriously. I really shouldn't but sometimes I backslide.

I think it's fine to respond to him seriously but my experience in doing so -- with facts and evidence -- shows that it does little but breed contempt.

It rarely if ever has resulted in him admitting Republican fault or doing anything to curb the abhorrent behavior of his party so outside of that it serves little to no purpose other than to enlighten others.

For the sake of anyone reading this exchange, if you say that people on your side should often not be taken seriously, that does suggest that they are signaling what side they're on rather than expressing their honest perspective.

And I do generally back up claims with evidence and sources. Anyone who disputes that is free to point to specific comments I've said.


There may be a problem in discussions if the expectation is that the other guy admits that you're right. You're not typically going to convince the people you disagree with that you're right about big questions on which reasonable people disagree.

That said, I do think looking at posts here will show that I'm much more likely to criticize Republicans from the center than the posters from this board are to criticize Democrats from the center.

A poster who is later banned commented.

Trans. - Oh if we who agree with each other just continue to discuss among ourselves we can be call ourselves serious and deny others a seat at our table and define what is real and virtuous.


https://www.britannica.com/topic/pluralism-politics

And Dalak continues talking about me.

This post would have a point if you hadn't come in late to try to stir up trouble and ignored the serious replies I gave earlier, or the evidence shown in those posts and others regarding Mets. Considering your own posting history regarding facts & truth, this is far more serious a reply than is deserved.

And I respond with links.

How so? What did he say that you disagree with?

If you don't take me seriously, it's weird that you decided to write several posts about me.

For context, I should note our previous disagreement as that may explain your interest.

You spent months going after me personally because I wouldn't call a journalist for The Week magazine a liar for going with the definition of trans used by the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD which is not limited to trans men and trans women. I noted it months earlier, although you wouldn't clearly say your views on the point.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6029780
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6030365

And then you bring it up months later.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6288652

I responded by noting our main disagreements since I think you seemed to misinterpret what I said, and I'm also including the response yo your reply.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6292552
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6292556
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6292853

The main reason I included all of that was in case it came up again. And you've made two posts about it, so it came up again.

[thwhtGuardian]

except you're not arguing with facts here.

[Mister Mets]

Your own bolded link disproves your current spin on the situation again, highlights how you will twist facts to suit yourself and misrepresent reality under the guise of 'summarizing differences', and the whole post assumes I was talking about that situation (About which you are still lying and providing the evidence of it) and not these other posts I'd recently referenced along with several other recent posts from aja_christopher and myself accentuating the point you've just demonstrated again here.





Serious replies meant to help you with some of your stated goals, and ignored time and again. Pretty much what I expected you'd do again when I referenced them hoping you could improve yourself and the republican party which is your stated justification for sticking with them. Yet another reason not to reply to you seriously.

From looking at the beginning of the argument, I am correct on Dalak's perspective.

Insisting that someone else become an activist is rude and unserious. In the context of a discussion forum for hobbyists, that's not a reasonable request of another human being.

I still don't think I've twisted anything.

Last year, I think I understood the argument and posted my understanding of where we came at it from different directions.

My sense was that you believe a reporter was exaggerating the number of females who were trans by lumping trans men together with people who are not girls or women, but have different designations (nonbinary, genderfluid, agender, etc.)



This seemed to be the impression others had.

You suggested that this wasn't your reasoning, and that your argument was about sex as opposed to gender, so you think the writer lumped together males and females in a way that skewed the numbers.



I disagreed on that point, and didn't think it merited personal insults.

Then you seemed to suggest that this is your argument by noting that people who are agender, nonbinary, genderfluid were lumped in as AFAB. I'll note again AFAB is not shorthand for trans men/ trans boys. It applies to everyone who was designated female at birth. Your comments seem to make sense only if you think AFAB is an interchangeable term for trans boys/ men.



I don't know if you're just trolling, if you changed your mind in the months in between and forgot your earlier views, if you're intentionally evasive because you don't want to admit your views, or if you were just imprecise earlier, but you've made different arguments while suggesting a reporter is a liar, and that I must be dishonest to reference a mainstream periodical.

Dalak disputes my comment "You spent months going after me personally because I wouldn't call a journalist for The Week magazine a liar for going with the definition of trans used by the Human Rights Campaign and GLAAD which is not limited to trans men and trans women. I noted it months earlier, although you wouldn't clearly say your views on the point."

If I demanded or required it of you please Bold & Quote. Since I just quoted them though it's obvious you are just deliberately misrepresenting what I posted like you continue to do at every opportunity.



None of what you posted after that equals what you said here:



You also quote yourself saying that in your understanding Shrier (Author of Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters) wasn't specifically referring to trans men in her book and was just using the same GLAAD definition you were using in a stunning self-own.

So please, gaslight us some more with how I'm the one who's evasive and changing my story while trying to rewrite Shrier's book to excuse false sensationalist reports intended to cause more Anti-Trans bigotry. It will help distract from you saying it's rude for someone to suggest how you can improve the republican party by remaining one which you've said is the reason you're still registered as a Republican.

I don't see any indication that Abigail Shrier was referring exclusively to trans boys/ men, with the exclusion of people who identify as being agender, nonbinary or genderfluid. It would seem to fit her concerns about social contagion, and young females not wanting to identify as girls or women.

What's the evidence that she was only talking about trans boys and men? Do you think a reporter would expect middle America to recognize these nuances?

Dalak makes a distinction that people who are gender non-conforming will not seek affirmative medical care.

Nice Edit

Without all the evidence looking at the book's wiki alone provides, it's right there in the Title: There is no "irreversible damage" in identifying as agender/nonbinary/genderfluid as that doesn't require any further treatment or surgery, and she's specifically talking about Daughters. The Week was also very clear when it said "1 in 20 girls" identified as transgender based on a study in which the number they inflated to reach that 5% included people who's birth gender wasn't given as well as openly AMAB individuals - The Article Lied. Misrepresenting the article and the book as having used a different definition than the one actually used is a Lie too.

I'd ask why you don't ever acknowledge proof that you misrepresent anything you happen to be misrepresenting, but I expect you'd dodge that question too. Especially as when the proof you are doing so is posted in/alongside it, and even more egregiously when you have posted it yourself multiple times, it's not an insult or loaded question.

I had addressed that point before.

As I said in early January, in response to you, in a post that did seem to get a response from you, people who are nonbinary or agender or genderfluid can still get further treatment and surgery.



A respected comic book writer (ND Stevenson of Lumberjanes, Nimona and a Harvey award winning Substack) covered that topic in a webcomic which I had read two years ago. The link still works.

[Mister Mets]

Well then the possibility exists I could be wrong. I'm sure you've got actual factual evidence to back up your claim here that Shrier & The Week's Article both not only used that definition in works that repeatedly refer to trans boys/men as "girls", and can provide more than them listing a definition but actually using it when discussing specifically agender/nonbinary/genderfluid individuals getting surgery/pressured into it or defining the breakdown of their numbers. I'm also sure that it was from most of a year ago when you first made the claim and that you can provide it regarding this book we've both admittedly not read in it's entirety, rather than admit that your claims are not based in fact. I cannot prove a negative after all.

I wish I could say I was surprised that you've still said nothing on the multiple times (With proof posted) you've misrepresented both my posts & your posts unrelated to this specific point. (AKA Did Shrier/TheWeek actually use GLAAD Definition)

I respond to Dalak's goal post. The argument is whether a writer lied. It seems to me the article didn't trick anyone by lumping transgender people together with nonbinary people.

The specific question is whether Shrier and the writer for the Week are trying to trick people using statistics by including those who are nonbinary, agender, genderfluid etc. in discussions on increases in adoptions of gender identities without making this distinction clear to readers.

The Week article made clear to note the distinction, quoting the mother of a nonbinary teenager.

https://theweek.com/life/1006253/the...er-trans-teens

In a New York post article, Shrier expresses her concern about the increases in young females identifying with these new gender categories.

https://nypost.com/2020/06/27/how-pe...transitioning/



The question isn't whether we agree with her, but whether she's trying to trick people.

So the answer is "No, The Week didn't define it's numbers and Shrier's book didn't include the evidence." Thank you for playing!

I address the view that people who are gender nonconforming are not trans.

The Week included a paragraph about a nonbinary teenager taking hormone treatment, so nonbinary individuals would count as transgender or experiencing gender dysphoria.

With Shrier, I noted an article that she wrote where she referenced the different gender categories, so it doesn't appear she's misleading anyone by including them in larger statistics about social changes. If you have an objection to the lack of evidence in her book, what incorrect evidence are you referring to?

You seemed to have an incorrect view that females who identify as trans boys will consistently seek gender affirming care , and that females who identify with different categories (like nonbinary) will never go for medical interventions, but that's just not the case. Some people identifying as agender/nonbinary/genderfluid feel that it requires further treatment or surgery. Meanwhile, some people identifying as trans boys don't want further treatment or surgery.

I understand a view that many people are identifying as genderfluid or agender or whatever new category as an affectation that they'll grow out of (this is quite similar to bisexual erasure) that they currently use to be more interesting. I don't share this view, nor would I insist on specific writers having this particular understanding.

Dalak says that his argument isn't about whether trans is an umbrella term that includes nonbinary individuals, but that it's more that the writer of a one page article couldn't know whether disproportionately high percentage of males identified outside the gender binary.

As I pointed out after you misrepresented my complaint as with the GLAAD definition, my actual and consistent complaint with The Week was how they lumped AMAB individuals as well as those who hadn't revealed how they were assigned at birth under "girls" aka AFAB to cause controversy. You still haven't addressed that except by misrepresenting my position.

I am not very surprised you are claiming you cannot remember a question you responded to (But didn't respond to with proof from the book) earlier this morning, as this is your standard operating procedure.

I'd addressed that point before, and did so again.

The math checks out, especially since females are more likely than males to identify as trans.

I pointed this out a while back.

https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6032471

Catlady had a question on lived experience.

Regarding the never-ending discussion about transphobia, let me ask you a question, Mets. You like to often pose questions about what should be the general approach rather than in a specific situation. So, I would like to know, do you think that when discussing some topic that will mostly impact a selected group of people instead of impacting everyone in a comparable degree, should we treat everyone's opinion with equal weight? Does the opinion and experience of someone who has lived through the reality of what people are talking about, lives it every day and will have their entire life impacted by the result, or the expertise of someone who has studied the topic for years and is continually educating themselves and talking to dozens of people with first-hand experience, does it compare with the opinion of someone who doesn't have any personal experience with the topic, refuses to listen to people who do and is drawing mostly from one source that several people have flagged as misleading? Not to mention, someone whose life won't even be affected either way.

Let's put it into a different example. I don't know what field you work in, but let's imagine if we were discussing something that you work with on a daily basis and you consider yourself to be skilled and practised in it. What would you say if some of us who work in completely different fields and have practically no education or experience in said topic, started to put forward our opinions that you can immediately see are complately uninformed and after some digging it's obvious that they are based on the work of someone you know to be either just as uninformed or intentionally misleading? Wouldn't it be frustrating if everyone who entered the discussion afterwards would treat all our arguments as having equal weight, regardless of how much experience and data is behind them?

Anecdotal evidence could be considered, but this should be done carefully.

I'm a teacher in New York City. I don't think this should mean that I get to tell anyone here discussing education issues to shut up because I know more about it than they do.

An individual's lived experience can be meaningful, but it's possible to draw the wrong conclusions. Someone may not realize the way their experiences don't match another's (For example- If I'm happy with my salary and benefits, this may not apply to someone in a different state.) Individuals can be mistaken. Imagine all the reasons you would be skeptical of anecdotal evidence coming from someone on a different side than you on a key issue.

It would be wrong to use only one source. That's definitely not what I'm doing. I've used multiple spources.

While I'm interested in the big picture and the meta questions, I do try to focus on the specific situation. In my arguments with Dalak, I'm focusing on the very specific question of whether two sources are intentionally misleading. Anecdotal evidence won't resolve that question.

If I saw people saying things that were really uninformed about education or about another topic I'm familiar with, I would try to find some reliable source that explains the issue and link that. If someone is legitimately misleading, I'd try to find sources to demonstrate that. A key distinction is that if I am saying that someone is completely misinformed or intentionally misleading, I had better be able to back up that claim. It's an allegation that shouldn't be made lightly. If I make that argument incorrectly, it would make me seem less reliable. At the very least, I've demonstrated that I'm a poor communicator and have wasted people's time with my own blind spots (and specialists can definitely have blind spots.)

Sometimes it seems a narrower question is a proxy for a larger topic. But this can lead to people rejecting inconvenient facts and digging in.

If anyone is wrong on a point, we should all be welcome to point out the mistake, and bold the section of the post in which they say something that's obviously incorrect, and explain what the truth is. The responses tend to be vaguer and less useful.

[Mister Mets]

I did want to share this point on anecdotal evidence.

Not only is it possible to draw the wrong conclusions, if one's own personal experience is in conflict with mountains of data that suggest otherwise, it is almost certain! Also, with conservatives it tends to be "I have anecdotal evidence X, therefore Y is true", or "I have anecdotal evidence X, so empirical evidence A-W have zero effect on what I believe. Therefore I will completely and utterly ignore them and just claim liberal bias".

Dalak disagreed on the math.

When you say the math checks out by just saying it does without providing proof and TheWeek didn't put forward that idea, you are once more making up claims without facts to back them and also misrepresenting TheWeek's actual article again. All this falsehood to avoid admitting you were wrong, and when we look at the elected GoP across the country it's clear this is exactly how they act and they want their voters to as well.

Anecdotal evidence isn't a partisan issue. It's human nature, and the drawbacks are the same.

I did have the proof.

I found the study mentioned in the article, and determined that it matches pretty closely what the article said."In surveys by the American College Health Association, the number of students brought up as girls identifying as transgender soared from 1 in 2,000 in 2008 to 1 in 20."

The survey shows that 4.2% of respondents identified as trans man, trans woman, genderqueer, genderfluid or nonbinary. The percentage would be lower for females if males were more likely to identify as genderqueer, genderfluid, nonbinary, etc. but studies suggest otherwise, so rounding to 1 in 20 doesn't seem like evidence of obvious lying.



If you're calling me out, quote what I said that you disagree with. Because I don't think what you're saying matches what I wrote. This may be why it's better to respond to what's said, rather than to make the conversation about the other guy.

Dalak remains unpersuaded.

The Week didn't make that distinction, so they still lied and you are still doing the same by excusing it saying you are using math unsupported by actual math & factual evidence instead of just supporting it by guesswork and estimates based in your own biased opinion. The same biased opinion that you excused throwing out Politifact's reports of massive republican lies for. That your bias in this matter should not be in dispute in this matter is obvious given the examples of statements you made like LibsOfTikTok not being wrong about "Mutilations" because fact-checkers didn't object to it, LGBT Tolerance Teaching equaling teaching about Deadly Diseases & Sexual Deviance, and "Modern Drag" being too sexual in regards to Safe-For-Kids Drag shows with more that don't spring to mind right away. Even your estimates don't take into considerations the point that CaptainEurope brought up regarding TransWomen feeling less willing to come forward considering how they are currently being portrayed as predators in bathrooms, or how they are grooming children by every conservative voice that can be heard, or any one of a dozen other lies being spread by actual elected GoP officials for years now. That alone could explain the 0.1 difference reported between Trans Women and Trans Men in the study we've been discussing as well as others.



In summary: What TheWeek reported feels true to you, so you have gone to ridiculous lengths to excuse it in defiance of actual fact.

E:

I wish you felt more like this when it applies to yourself.

I looked at the math again.

What distinction are you referring to?

The study says that 4.2% of respondents identified as trans man, trans woman, genderqueer, genderfluid or nonbinary.

It is documented that more females are identifying as being in those categories (with the exception of "trans woman" obviously.)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6802728/



https://www.reuters.com/investigates...th-topsurgery/



You've said multiple times that your comments are about sex at birth and not about claiming that the category trans only applies to those who identify as trans men, trans boys, trans girls and trans women. So I'll take you on your word on this.
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...77#post6031977
https://community.cbr.com/showthread...=1#post6021349


What have I said that's wrong in these recent posts? Can you quote it, and put it in bold?

This seems like a reasonable ask if you keep calling me out online.

Dalak suggests that any interpretation of the survey was incorrect for listing people whose gender was not listed (two-spirited, neopronouns, etc.) as trans.

Everything that you've applied to "1-in-20 girls" which adds to/alters what was actually printed, as you well know.



Actually that number includes 0.5 who said nothing matched, which by any definition don't count as Transgender. So The Week actually rounded up 3.7% using basic subtraction even if we use your distinction. I don't agree that they are valid, as they involve tilting the scales worse than adding in everything it takes to believe that Democrats in general are secretly supporting open borders thanks to 1 prominent Democrat wearing a t-shirt. They also don't take into account anything except what you want to include, like dismissing any hesitation from Trans Women to self-report when they have been demonized as predators and cheaters for many years now. Why else do you think there is such a vicious simultaneous attack on Drag aka Men dressed like Women?

Gary Lensman noted potential issues with the survey.

That study also has a 17% gap between male and female responses, so it already has skewed data. As a quality analyst, that part there tells me they didn't get an accurate representation of the population. There seems to be an underlying bias in either who they surveyed or in who actually answered.

Tendrin suggests that disagreements are not about recent points.

I do want to note that I barely mention Shrier. I'm focusing on a very narrow question of whether we should agree that a reporter intentionally misinterpreted a study.

We're not just talking about your recent posts. You've spent months defending Shrier's book, a book literally subtitled 'the transgender craze seducing our daughters', which you aren't stupid enough to think isn't an inflammatory title and is a book largely dependent on a thesis that transgender kids are deluding themselves. It's a trans-antagonistic viewpoint, and one that is shared by other people you've defended, such as Jesse Singal, and violently espoused by LibsOfTikTok, who you have *also* chosen to spend your time on the internet defending and downplaying the activities of, all of this against a backdrop of your party in some states trying to erase trans people from public life.

These are all things you did, unquestioned, and I am not going to go back through months of posts to point out your own actions to you but to which anyone who has been reading this thread for any amount of time has been witness to.

If the book in question is based on faulty, discredited data and if you care about empirical facts and logic, as you're so fond of claiming, then you'd recognize that the perponderance of data points to the life-saving nature of and low regret rate for gender-affirming care. Instead, you have equated people pointing out that the damage done by withholding this care is tantamount to blackmail, and have ignored quite a number of studies that I and others have posted about the benefits of gender-affirming care to continue defending a book based on a transphobic premise that gays -- excuse me, transgender people -- are recruting your kids.

It seems to me that you don't care about the science but you do care about protecting conservatism.

[thwhtGuardian]

You keep posting more and more evidence that you were factually incorrect. It's kind of weird. Wouldn't it just be easier to recognize that you fell for a false syllogism and admit that you were mistaken?

[Mister Mets]

I responded on that point.

It's certainly possible that the studies aren't perfect, and that more information is needed. The authors had some suggestions in those departments.


In this discussion, I try to avoid using the term 'girls' to refer to sex (I get that Shrier does not make the distinction) since that can be seen as disrespectful to trans boys and men, as well as leading to confusion. The article was pretty clear that the statistics were about females, or "students brought up as girls."

In the context of an initial baseline of 1 in 2,000, 3.7% would represent a tremendous increase much closer to 1 in 20. However, the math still checks out given the current polling data on younger trans youth where females seem to outnumber males to an extent that a statistic that applies to 3.7% of the general population could apply to 5% of the female population.

It's a fair point that there may be response bias due to discrimination against trans men, although that's a unique argument that I haven't seen in the press on this. It doesn't seem fair to bash a survey for not considering something like that. It's possible that they hadn't thought to investigate that, in which case they're still acting in good faith. It's also possible that they looked into it, and it didn't make a big enough difference.

As for the other stuff, you're stretching what I said. For example, I don't say that Democrats in general (which we could define as the people who make the party, or a majority of elected/ appointed officials) support open borders. My position's a bit more nuanced (a substantial portion of the left essentially prefers no limits to legal immigration; the Democratic party is not pushing back against them sufficiently or articulating clear limits on legal immigration.

So you're bringing me up, but there isn't really anything I've specifically said on the issue that you disagree with.

I don't think I said anything particularly outrageous about Singal.

https://community.cbr.com/search.php?searchid=12924536

With the Libsoftiktok person, my main question was on the standards for prosecution.

The criticism of defending bad people is also agnostic on the question of whether they're right or wrong on a particular point, or whether a criticism is valid. Under those circumstances, people will be less inclined to consider your arguments.

Dalak's not happy that I noticed he used "girls" to describe a group that includes cis girls, and transgender boys.

I quote "girls" because that's what TheWeek & Shrier both used to stir up the anti-trans sentiment that you've gotten caught up in and have consistently defended as legitimate.

EX: You are fine with The Week rounding up a number by close to 50% because you feel there are so many more Trans Men than Trans Women and applying that to "Girls" in general when the Week didn't say they were doing that or hint at it in their article.

Here is an interesting study that popped up when I was googling why trans women were less likely to come out which actually starts with the premise that there are more Trans Women than Men. It even goes into the theory we had here about why FTM are more likely now to come out as MTF is because of the stigmatizing of the Trans Women, and how they are about equal now. It also goes into what these specific numbers break down to, as only 15 adolescents were tracked transitioning in this 30 year long study, that were definitely slanted toward FTM however it also notes how MTF have always transitioned later in life than FTM so another explanation for your "spike" has been found.




Did any of your studies even bring up the possibility that MTF might transition at a lower rate due to the constant demonization of them by the GoP in general and every conservative pundit out there? This one brought it up in 2020, long after the Anti-Trans movement within the GoP started and before the current and verified spike in Anti-Trans bigotry embraced by the GoP and Conservatism as a whole

I notice a potential difference that he's going with a new definition.

Perhaps in situations where I'm dismissive, I have reason to be.

The Week article made it clear that the increase was among people raised as girls.

If you think they misinterpreted data in a study, there seem to be two possibilities.
1. Dalak on CBR found a relatively obvious mistake in a publication with half a million subscribers (more online readers) talking about a sensitive topic, and this is not something anyone else pointed out to them to encourage a retraction, nor is there a rebuttal easily found online. This would be a situation where no one involved in the original study would point a serious misunderstanding.
2. You've made an incorrect assumption somewhere.

A semantic point is that I'm looking at identification rather than transitioning, so the experiences of a clinic that provides a particular service are useful but potentially unrepresentative. I don't see any part of your quote and link to suggest MTF are less likely to come forward because of bias. It's more about why FTM are more comfortable coming forward.

It does identify an increase in FTM, and notes a decrease in the age at which both groups of individuals begin hormone therapy, which would suggest that FTM are more comfortable now seeking resources than before.

I'm not saying affirmative care is easy to get everywhere.

In some settings, it seems parental consent, a doctor's note and money is all that's needed. The Seattle legislature was crafting a law to make it easier to circumvent hesitant parents. You may think that's a good idea.

The Times looked at this.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/09/26/h...teenagers.html



For some adolescents, it can be quite difficult. But it's not always the case.

Dalak once again makes the girls mistake (incidentally, the article used the term "students brought up as girls" which would include trans men.)

As always your reading comprehension is selective and the obliviousness is too much to be anything but deliberate.

You maintain that TheWeek came to their statement of "1-in-20 girls" by comparing the actual number of Trans individuals vs the total students responding (Counting all individuals regardless of birth gender) before rounding up the number by nearly half based on other studies you have brought up after the fact. You maintain this despite not being able to show evidence them doing such math behind the scenes or any quotes from their article to back this up when they don't cite more than 1 study when bringing up "1-in-20 girls". You also now say that since the article wasn't retracted or amended it has to be correct in defiance of documented fact because I'm an internet hobbyist and I must be mistaken.

You maintain that the statement "One possibility is that a relatively lower degree of social stigmatization of females adopting cross-gender behaviors (compared with males) allowed some alleviation of gender dysphoria in transgender males." doesn't also mean that that trans women are more stigmatized and thus aren't coming forward in the same numbers despite the overall acceptance of LGBT the study noted promoting an increase across the board. Another way to say it is "Transgender Men/boys are more comfortable coming forward as they aren't being as stigmatized as Trans Women/Girls" without going through the mental gymnastics of adding in all the additive math involving numbers and studies TheWeek didn't define, cite, or show.

There are 2 reasons to act this way.
1. Mets knows he is wrong and isn't willing to admit it and so will excuse the lies of those on his side because it feels true to him, making up whatever it takes to excuse it like so many Trump Defenders do involving statements he puts out.
2. Mets knows he is wrong and is simply posting like this to waste the time of internet hobbyists.

At this point, this section of the conversation ended.

[Dalak]

except you're not arguing with facts here.

Like how I said surgery isn't necessary and having it spun as saying they won't have it with a connotation of Never put on it.

I genuinely hope that anyone who agrees with Mets decides to chime in with the ones who have disagreed, because so far I've seen no evidence that his deliberate misinterpretations & faux ignorance has been excused yet.

E:

You keep posting more and more evidence that you were factually incorrect. It's kind of weird. Wouldn't it just be easier to recognize that you fell for a false syllogism and admit that you were mistaken?

I certainly think it would be.

[thwhtGuardian]

I responded on that point.



Dalak's not happy that I noticed he used "girls" to describe a group that includes cis girls, and transgender boys.



I notice a potential difference that he's going with a new definition.



Dalak once again makes the girls mistake (incidentally, the article used the term "students brought up as girls" which would include trans men.)



At this point, this section of the conversation ended.

You aren't looking at identification as you are claiming in that quote though, if you were placing value on how people specifically identify you wouldn't be supportive of a blanket term that doesn't fit everyone. Your very own posts are showing that your whole point is mistaken.

[Dalak]

You aren't looking at identification as you are claiming in that quote though, if you were placing value on how people specifically identify you wouldn't be supportive of a blanket term that doesn't fit everyone. Your very own posts are showing that your whole point is mistaken.

I pointed that out very early in the argument as has been shown by Mets, but that didn't stop him then and I doubt it will stop him now.

[thwhtGuardian]

It seems like a massive case of cognitive dissonance at this point: He's knows that being seen as transphobic is a negative, but despite that he has transphobic views anyway and instead of deciding to change that behavior he seeks out "evidence" that rationally confirms and justifies his bias and cannot see the very obvious short comings and fallacies in his evidence because then he'd have to admit that he was just transphobic.

[CaptainEurope]

Some rare good news from Texas. A case most of us probably remember:

A Texas appeals court has reversed the conviction of Crystal Mason — who was unjustly sentenced to 5 years in prison for mistakenly casting a provisional ballot (which wasn’t ever counted).

She no longer faces prison time.

[Tami]

Some rare good news from Texas. A case most of us probably remember:

Very good news.

Texas appeals court overturns Crystal Mason’s conviction, 5-year sentence for illegal voting

The decision by the Tarrant County-based Second Court of Appeals means she is formally acquitted of the felony voting charge. The court said in the decision that there was no evidence Mason knew she was ineligible to vote when she cast her ballot — which is a condition that must be met in order to convict her of illegal voting.

Mason has maintained throughout the seven-year case that she did not know she was ineligible and would not have risked her freedom if she had.

The Second Court of Appeals initially upheld her conviction but two years ago was instructed by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals to “evaluate the sufficiency” of the evidence against Mason, saying that the lower court had “erred by failing to require proof that [Mason] had actual knowledge that it was a crime for her to vote while on supervised release.”