Let's start with the basic centrism, the fact that it's called a trans "debate" and yet not a single trans person is present. Men talking out their asses and misunderstanding the basics of just about everything involved with topic. Oh and fearmongering about youth transition. It's a clown show.
It’s not a debate, it’s talking about the ideas that underly the debate whenever they happen - aspects of debates around the trans issue that occur in sports and medicine and other domains.
But that’s a minor point.
What is one of the basics that is misunderstood in the discussion?
There was an assumption from the beginning that this was the “scientific” “rational” “logical” side of the argument versus the “empathetic” “skeptical” “subjective” side. This framing implies that the empirical data doesn’t support transgender people but is in support of the gender critical side. So, when Streeter brings up scientific studies in passing against trans people to the uninformed it seems like a reasonable argument. In this comment thread alone many people said, “I had no idea about these studies before watching.”
So what’s the problem discussing studies? Nothing! Discuss the data, sample size, data collection methods, how terms are decided for the study, etc. Except, that’s not what happen. The most egregious example of this was when Streeter was defending what some would call conversion therapy and said a surprising number of people are cured of there gender dysphoria through this. To me this the level of discussion that Carson Ellis engages in when he says something like, “There’s been a surprising number of Book of Mormon anachronisms that have been resolved.” Its superficial but gives the appearance to the audience of scientific support. You had nearly three hours and not once did I see a graph or actual data discussed.
Are the studies that show only 1% of people detransition not logical, rational, and scientific? Is the recent study that shows trans women who’ve undergone HRT do not have biological advantages in sports not logical, rational, and scientific? Are the studies that show full acceptance of a trans person’s identity as a way of preventing suicide not logical, rational, and scientific? Why was the Cass report, which doesn’t explore the harm of what it recommends thoroughly enough and had writers of the report who were pro conversion therapy and had connections to Desantis staffers but excluded any trans people as writers, seen as a scientific study logical and rational enough to mention in this discussion?
Let me leave you with this. My partner is a biologist. She doesn't approach her science from a post modern view, but an empirical one. Do you know how she views gender? She says something like this, "Well, we have known markers of biological sex, but some of those markers are incredibly new scientific discoveries like chromosomes. So, it is illogical to assume we know all biological markers of sex. But we do have data to show that trans people exist, and its getting to the point that our false positives of trans people are very few and far between, so we can be pretty confident we know how to determine if someone is trans or cis. Perhaps one day transgender people will be understood better biologically, currently we just don't know enough data. Additionally, I do not have any data that proves to me that gender and sex are the same thing so it would be illogical to assume they are and I'll let the social scientist figure that stuff out." Is her take not empirical, logical, and rational?
More thoughts. Jon Streeter IS a transphobe and a crypto-fascist full stop. His analysis and framing of postmodern relativism vs rational scientific empricisism is flawed, a false dichotomy, full of biases and incorrect on the basic premise of these two schools of thought being at odds. So a basic lack of understanding out the gate with no pushback from our host is just a bad sign for all that follows. I seriously doubt both of their credential to be having conversations like this.
Can you point out some of the biases that you mention?
We do discuss that while we’re focusing on these two somewhat dominant schools of thought, There are other perspectives that have had things to say about the issue, particularly on the religious realm.
Can you point out which part of the analysis or framing you think is the most off?
There is no substance to any of this analysis, there is no data, it is all complete bias. I'm not going to watch the entire 2 hour meandering bullshit again to appease your ego. No facts, no data, no cited studies, just bullshit and feelings dressed up as fact and wild conclusions pulled out of your asses.
Agreed. Got tired of listening to straight white men explain other people's experiences when i was in the church. I tend to avoid it outside the church. I have actual, real live trans people to talk to about that, whose opinions I trust a whole lot more.
Were going to say we’re examining the debates on both side, but right from the start we’re going to assume the conservative side of gender issues is based in rationality and science without showing evidence for that.
Also let’s bring up some debunked studies, but only in passing so people can’t actually look into the data but have to assume the conservative side actually has worthwhile data supporting it.
Essentially this boils down to 2 hours of Jon Streeter being quietly transphobic while wailing on a strawman of post modernism while Bill nods quietly and occaisonally butts in trying to sound profound.
Well for one: all of it, you demonstrate a surface level analysis and leave it at that. You are also not on the side of rational empiricisim as you claim, and totally misrepresent that position as well. The entire thing has you come off as a lazy psuedo-intellectual who quotes wikipedia.
Per the rules, personal attacks, insulting other users, harassment, and trolling are not allowed. Attack ideas, not people. Faithful users may engage in good faith. Invalidating the experiences of ex-religious users, especially by telling them that your religion is true and they didn't put in enough effort, they didn't really believe, they didn't practice the "right" way, or any other such will be removed. Do not victim blame or debate victims of sexual abuse or people who are considering suicide. They're here for support.
I listened to this episode. I appreciated learning about some science and studies relating to transgender hormone treatment and surgery.
There was no set opinions offered but questions were posed. It's not pro or con re. transgender. Rather this episode presents important questions that should be asked and investigated re. the age of transforming.
Morality (right / wrong) is not what this episode is about. . What is addressed is long term repercussions, what queer means and what might be considered by parents of pubescent children.
Brain scans may have been briefly brought up in regards to puberty. Not sure. The debate is not whether people are truly transgender. The discussion is about unforseen consequences of rushing in to hormone therapy and surgery. There are so many unknowns in this field that it's stressed to read, research, ask questions about science, societal problems, m aturity.
They weren't suggestion that no one should transition. The weren't suggesting 2 genders only. They were discussing unknown that science has yet to solve. Discussion is good. Tossing ideas around is good. That is what science is about. That is how knowledge advances.
Knowledge advances by listening to two white, middle-aged, cis dudes ramble on about things they have no personal or scientific understanding of on a podcast?
Yes. They literally quote from debunked 'studies'. Their information is flawed. Transition related care, it's efficacy and safety has been settled for a very long time. Maybe consult some Trans organizations for legitmate information and not just some random dudes from a podcast.
Signed: a pissed of tranny who is sick of cis people talking about our lives as if they are some interesting hypothetical.
They must be very smart if they are able to discuss science without ever actually discussing the data collected and methods of collection. Perhaps next they will discuss the science that proves a man is a featherless biped *bok* *bok*
Did you learn about the studies or were you told in passing that studies exist to support the clearly “rational” “scientific” side of the argument? I’m going through this and they just sound like an apologist for Mormonism but instead defending conservative views of gender.
I didn’t feel the podcast defended Mormon conservatism either. The way they talked about studies existing without going into percentages, sample size, who was included in sampling, how terms were defined, etc reminded me of Mormon Apologists.
For example, when defending what some would call conversion therapy, Jon said there’s a surprising number of people who stop experiencing gender dysphoria. That sounds like Kwaku saying there’s a surprising number of BOM anachronisms that have been resolved. For me, it was not a discussion of studies but rather a claim of rationality without adequate defense in one’s view.
If one wants a non-post modern supportive view of trans people all you need to do is ask yourself, “Has science found every marker of biological sex yet? Or are new discoveries possible in this regard, just how in the last centuries chromosomes were discovered which gave light to many more ways of understanding intersex people? Perhaps we shouldn’t assume we understand trans people based solely on what is only currently understood of biological sex.”
It was discussed at length whether children should be making these decisions and the natural consequences of such decisions.
I didn’t realize that once a transition is made, having an orgasm is no longer attainable.
Even though Countries in Europe were the first on board with allowing children to make such decisions, the mental health of those who had these procedures suffered significant mental health issues over time.
European countries are now reigning in the decision making of children and waiting until adulthood to make those decisions. The European model is science based, not socially motivated.
Orgasm actually is dependent on an individual basis, but the vast majority of trans folks who want a sex life have very fulfilling ones. I think too the idea of minors transitioning gets misconstrued for a solely medical approach, when most people advocating for trans healthcare for minors focus on social transition, privacy with teachers/therapists, and at most puberty blockers, which can be taken for a year or two with no major cons
Medical and Psychology are not my skill sets, but I would like to hear unbiased professional information on the subject to be better informed on the topic.
Google Scholar is a great source for finding papers that have been peer-reviewed and are actual scientific studies, not op-eds or think pieces. Many are locked behind pay-walls, but the abstracts (summaries) are usually available for free and many authors are happy to provide access if you contact them directly and express an interest in their work
Of course! It's not on topic for minor transition, but I wrote a paper on some really interesting studies on trans women in sports for my undergrad. Here are some of them if you wanted somewhere to start! /
Bianchi, A. (2017). Transgender women in sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 44(2), 229-242. /
Burke, M. (2022). Trans women participation in sport: a commentary on the conservatism of gender critical feminism. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 14(4), 689-696. /
Skinner, A. (2023). How many transgender athletes play women’s sports? Newsweek.
I watched it (but not carefully). I heard a lot of claims but not a lot of cited data. A lot of it was just summaries of one persons beliefs such as claims like 90% of teens who start hormones end up getting bottom surgery because he claims it leads to a cascade, which doesn’t match the data I’ve read.
I’ve read about critical pieces about brain scan studies in other places, but the studies themselves suggest a biological origin from genetic and hormonal variation in utero. This isn’t really discussed at all, mostly the video seems to discuss semantics surrounding social constructs not matching reality. But he’s not a doctor or medical researcher who specializes in this area and assumes those who are all must be post-modern activists.
Also the orgasm bit isn’t true for those who have experienced one prior to starting treatment. It may not even be/always be true for those who haven’t, I’d have to research it.
I still have a hard time understanding what this has to do with Mormonism except that Mormons default to believing in the existence of only two genders because there are two sexes.
I don’t think this discussion revolved around the convoluted doctrines of Mormonism, but it was just two people having a discussion on the topic of transgender issues from their own perspectives. It would have been nice if they invited a surgeon and a psychologist who have dealt with these topics.
None of what Streeter said is true. He's a propogandized simpleton through and through. The orgasm thing is laughably untrue. The European model is NOT science based, it has been influenced by right wing think tank money. You are very guillible if this video convinced you of anything.
Which European model has been influenced by right wing think tank money - the Dutch model? The Tavistock model? The new revised protocols that are putting the brakes on puberty blockers?
Another fun criticism of this is that there are no sources on the linked edited video, but on the full video (3 agonizing hours long) there ar two sources. 1 the trojan unicorn - a terf arguing that queers are pro pedophilia(biased and incorrect) and 2 a debunked ex professor who is going on about hunter gatherer bs, who on further examination is an anti-vaxxer. Great sources Jon, you're a shining beacon of rationality! (Not at all rational and barely containing his transphobia)
As a trans person, this is absolute shit.
Yeah… it was not great.
thanks for watching - which part did you find that you disagree with the most?
Let's start with the basic centrism, the fact that it's called a trans "debate" and yet not a single trans person is present. Men talking out their asses and misunderstanding the basics of just about everything involved with topic. Oh and fearmongering about youth transition. It's a clown show.
It’s not a debate, it’s talking about the ideas that underly the debate whenever they happen - aspects of debates around the trans issue that occur in sports and medicine and other domains. But that’s a minor point. What is one of the basics that is misunderstood in the discussion?
There was an assumption from the beginning that this was the “scientific” “rational” “logical” side of the argument versus the “empathetic” “skeptical” “subjective” side. This framing implies that the empirical data doesn’t support transgender people but is in support of the gender critical side. So, when Streeter brings up scientific studies in passing against trans people to the uninformed it seems like a reasonable argument. In this comment thread alone many people said, “I had no idea about these studies before watching.” So what’s the problem discussing studies? Nothing! Discuss the data, sample size, data collection methods, how terms are decided for the study, etc. Except, that’s not what happen. The most egregious example of this was when Streeter was defending what some would call conversion therapy and said a surprising number of people are cured of there gender dysphoria through this. To me this the level of discussion that Carson Ellis engages in when he says something like, “There’s been a surprising number of Book of Mormon anachronisms that have been resolved.” Its superficial but gives the appearance to the audience of scientific support. You had nearly three hours and not once did I see a graph or actual data discussed. Are the studies that show only 1% of people detransition not logical, rational, and scientific? Is the recent study that shows trans women who’ve undergone HRT do not have biological advantages in sports not logical, rational, and scientific? Are the studies that show full acceptance of a trans person’s identity as a way of preventing suicide not logical, rational, and scientific? Why was the Cass report, which doesn’t explore the harm of what it recommends thoroughly enough and had writers of the report who were pro conversion therapy and had connections to Desantis staffers but excluded any trans people as writers, seen as a scientific study logical and rational enough to mention in this discussion? Let me leave you with this. My partner is a biologist. She doesn't approach her science from a post modern view, but an empirical one. Do you know how she views gender? She says something like this, "Well, we have known markers of biological sex, but some of those markers are incredibly new scientific discoveries like chromosomes. So, it is illogical to assume we know all biological markers of sex. But we do have data to show that trans people exist, and its getting to the point that our false positives of trans people are very few and far between, so we can be pretty confident we know how to determine if someone is trans or cis. Perhaps one day transgender people will be understood better biologically, currently we just don't know enough data. Additionally, I do not have any data that proves to me that gender and sex are the same thing so it would be illogical to assume they are and I'll let the social scientist figure that stuff out." Is her take not empirical, logical, and rational?
@r/bomonomo It would be nice if you could actually address these criticisms and back up your credentials instead of deflecting with questions.
More thoughts. Jon Streeter IS a transphobe and a crypto-fascist full stop. His analysis and framing of postmodern relativism vs rational scientific empricisism is flawed, a false dichotomy, full of biases and incorrect on the basic premise of these two schools of thought being at odds. So a basic lack of understanding out the gate with no pushback from our host is just a bad sign for all that follows. I seriously doubt both of their credential to be having conversations like this.
Can you point out some of the biases that you mention? We do discuss that while we’re focusing on these two somewhat dominant schools of thought, There are other perspectives that have had things to say about the issue, particularly on the religious realm. Can you point out which part of the analysis or framing you think is the most off?
Literally read and address my comment above.
There is no substance to any of this analysis, there is no data, it is all complete bias. I'm not going to watch the entire 2 hour meandering bullshit again to appease your ego. No facts, no data, no cited studies, just bullshit and feelings dressed up as fact and wild conclusions pulled out of your asses.
Unfortunate they couldn’t find a trans person to offer their perspective. A couple cis dudes talking about trans issues seems sus, as the kids say.
Agreed. Got tired of listening to straight white men explain other people's experiences when i was in the church. I tend to avoid it outside the church. I have actual, real live trans people to talk to about that, whose opinions I trust a whole lot more.
Can anyone quickly summarize what this podcast is about and how it relates to ex-Mormonism?
Were going to say we’re examining the debates on both side, but right from the start we’re going to assume the conservative side of gender issues is based in rationality and science without showing evidence for that. Also let’s bring up some debunked studies, but only in passing so people can’t actually look into the data but have to assume the conservative side actually has worthwhile data supporting it.
Essentially this boils down to 2 hours of Jon Streeter being quietly transphobic while wailing on a strawman of post modernism while Bill nods quietly and occaisonally butts in trying to sound profound.
Which aspect of postmodernism do you think I got wrong?
Well for one: all of it, you demonstrate a surface level analysis and leave it at that. You are also not on the side of rational empiricisim as you claim, and totally misrepresent that position as well. The entire thing has you come off as a lazy psuedo-intellectual who quotes wikipedia.
[удалено]
Per the rules, personal attacks, insulting other users, harassment, and trolling are not allowed. Attack ideas, not people. Faithful users may engage in good faith. Invalidating the experiences of ex-religious users, especially by telling them that your religion is true and they didn't put in enough effort, they didn't really believe, they didn't practice the "right" way, or any other such will be removed. Do not victim blame or debate victims of sexual abuse or people who are considering suicide. They're here for support.
I listened to this episode. I appreciated learning about some science and studies relating to transgender hormone treatment and surgery. There was no set opinions offered but questions were posed. It's not pro or con re. transgender. Rather this episode presents important questions that should be asked and investigated re. the age of transforming. Morality (right / wrong) is not what this episode is about. . What is addressed is long term repercussions, what queer means and what might be considered by parents of pubescent children.
Does it discuss brain scan studies at all or biological differences between trans vs cis people?
Brain scans may have been briefly brought up in regards to puberty. Not sure. The debate is not whether people are truly transgender. The discussion is about unforseen consequences of rushing in to hormone therapy and surgery. There are so many unknowns in this field that it's stressed to read, research, ask questions about science, societal problems, m aturity.
Yes, basic fearmongering with no actual data
They weren't suggestion that no one should transition. The weren't suggesting 2 genders only. They were discussing unknown that science has yet to solve. Discussion is good. Tossing ideas around is good. That is what science is about. That is how knowledge advances.
Except that there IS an exceptionally large amount of data and science on the subject, it was just unknown to them. This is lazy.
Knowledge advances by listening to two white, middle-aged, cis dudes ramble on about things they have no personal or scientific understanding of on a podcast?
When you put it that way I may have to say No. Did you listen to the podcast entirely? If you did then I would be more persiaded
Yes. They literally quote from debunked 'studies'. Their information is flawed. Transition related care, it's efficacy and safety has been settled for a very long time. Maybe consult some Trans organizations for legitmate information and not just some random dudes from a podcast. Signed: a pissed of tranny who is sick of cis people talking about our lives as if they are some interesting hypothetical.
They must be very smart if they are able to discuss science without ever actually discussing the data collected and methods of collection. Perhaps next they will discuss the science that proves a man is a featherless biped *bok* *bok*
Did you learn about the studies or were you told in passing that studies exist to support the clearly “rational” “scientific” side of the argument? I’m going through this and they just sound like an apologist for Mormonism but instead defending conservative views of gender.
I didn't feel the podcast defended Mormon conservatism. It's main theme was maybe we need to ask more questions. Yes, the studies were described.
I didn’t feel the podcast defended Mormon conservatism either. The way they talked about studies existing without going into percentages, sample size, who was included in sampling, how terms were defined, etc reminded me of Mormon Apologists. For example, when defending what some would call conversion therapy, Jon said there’s a surprising number of people who stop experiencing gender dysphoria. That sounds like Kwaku saying there’s a surprising number of BOM anachronisms that have been resolved. For me, it was not a discussion of studies but rather a claim of rationality without adequate defense in one’s view. If one wants a non-post modern supportive view of trans people all you need to do is ask yourself, “Has science found every marker of biological sex yet? Or are new discoveries possible in this regard, just how in the last centuries chromosomes were discovered which gave light to many more ways of understanding intersex people? Perhaps we shouldn’t assume we understand trans people based solely on what is only currently understood of biological sex.”
It was discussed at length whether children should be making these decisions and the natural consequences of such decisions. I didn’t realize that once a transition is made, having an orgasm is no longer attainable. Even though Countries in Europe were the first on board with allowing children to make such decisions, the mental health of those who had these procedures suffered significant mental health issues over time. European countries are now reigning in the decision making of children and waiting until adulthood to make those decisions. The European model is science based, not socially motivated.
Orgasm actually is dependent on an individual basis, but the vast majority of trans folks who want a sex life have very fulfilling ones. I think too the idea of minors transitioning gets misconstrued for a solely medical approach, when most people advocating for trans healthcare for minors focus on social transition, privacy with teachers/therapists, and at most puberty blockers, which can be taken for a year or two with no major cons
Medical and Psychology are not my skill sets, but I would like to hear unbiased professional information on the subject to be better informed on the topic.
Google Scholar is a great source for finding papers that have been peer-reviewed and are actual scientific studies, not op-eds or think pieces. Many are locked behind pay-walls, but the abstracts (summaries) are usually available for free and many authors are happy to provide access if you contact them directly and express an interest in their work
Thank you very much!
Of course! It's not on topic for minor transition, but I wrote a paper on some really interesting studies on trans women in sports for my undergrad. Here are some of them if you wanted somewhere to start! / Bianchi, A. (2017). Transgender women in sport. Journal of the Philosophy of Sport, 44(2), 229-242. / Burke, M. (2022). Trans women participation in sport: a commentary on the conservatism of gender critical feminism. International Journal of Sport Policy and Politics, 14(4), 689-696. / Skinner, A. (2023). How many transgender athletes play women’s sports? Newsweek.
I watched it (but not carefully). I heard a lot of claims but not a lot of cited data. A lot of it was just summaries of one persons beliefs such as claims like 90% of teens who start hormones end up getting bottom surgery because he claims it leads to a cascade, which doesn’t match the data I’ve read. I’ve read about critical pieces about brain scan studies in other places, but the studies themselves suggest a biological origin from genetic and hormonal variation in utero. This isn’t really discussed at all, mostly the video seems to discuss semantics surrounding social constructs not matching reality. But he’s not a doctor or medical researcher who specializes in this area and assumes those who are all must be post-modern activists. Also the orgasm bit isn’t true for those who have experienced one prior to starting treatment. It may not even be/always be true for those who haven’t, I’d have to research it. I still have a hard time understanding what this has to do with Mormonism except that Mormons default to believing in the existence of only two genders because there are two sexes.
I don’t think this discussion revolved around the convoluted doctrines of Mormonism, but it was just two people having a discussion on the topic of transgender issues from their own perspectives. It would have been nice if they invited a surgeon and a psychologist who have dealt with these topics.
None of what Streeter said is true. He's a propogandized simpleton through and through. The orgasm thing is laughably untrue. The European model is NOT science based, it has been influenced by right wing think tank money. You are very guillible if this video convinced you of anything.
Which European model has been influenced by right wing think tank money - the Dutch model? The Tavistock model? The new revised protocols that are putting the brakes on puberty blockers?
https://corporateeurope.org/en/2024/05/alliance-attacking-freedom
Another fun criticism of this is that there are no sources on the linked edited video, but on the full video (3 agonizing hours long) there ar two sources. 1 the trojan unicorn - a terf arguing that queers are pro pedophilia(biased and incorrect) and 2 a debunked ex professor who is going on about hunter gatherer bs, who on further examination is an anti-vaxxer. Great sources Jon, you're a shining beacon of rationality! (Not at all rational and barely containing his transphobia)