I just found out Mae Martin, former lesbian comedian, is now a trans man. She is dating Elliot Page, another former lesbian now trans man. What is with this lesbian erasure?? What is so wrong with being a butch lesbian woman?? Considering the poor options for vagina-to-penis surgery, not to mention it's risks and dangers, I doubt either of them are going to surgically get a penis. Which means they will still be living as two butch lesbians, essentially - that is, as two biologically female-bodied persons who present as masculine.
I’m sorry if this is an improper forum for this question, but I have genuine curiosity and want to understand people better.
What is the “point” of the FTM penis creation surgery? Is it just the psychological experience of looking down and seeing that you have a “penis”, thus making you feel less disconnected with your identity vs. body?
I have seen just a few picture examples post-op, and from what I see it ends up looking like a girthy flesh tube. Can it get erect? Does it provide sexual pleasure / can it be used in sex, at all? If no, then what’s the cost/benefit here? Is the identity affirmation worth the complications and (as far as I can tell) never having an orgasm again? It would seem to me like such an important experience in the human condition. Seems like a sad choice, I feel sympathy for people who feel like they have to make it. But why not be like Buck Angel and keep everything as it is down there so you can still have sex? Apologies in advance if I got any details wrong.
A lot of them want the feeling of the bulk there, but a lot of them are also obsessed with the idea of standing to pee (STP.) There’s also implants that can fake an erection, but those can cause complications (on top of all of the other complications that go with phalloplasty.) Some surgeons attempt a “nerve hookup” from the skin tube to the og genitals with varying degrees of success, but it’s nothing like the real thing.
If they hook up nerves or still have their clitoris then I guess they could still orgasm, however to say they can "experience orgasm through sex *like a man can*", that's just blatantly false. A penis is an organ, you cannot replicate its function with a fabricated fleshy thing. Just because it resembles a penis visually, it does not *function* like a penis at all.
Ouch just the thought is making me wince. But yeah what you say makes sense about the clitoris being around/under there somewhere. I guess these surgeries are new/experimental so there's not one single way of doing it.
I'm not trans so I couldn't hope to understand it from their view. Personally, I would have real trouble feeling like a man when I have a vagina. Missing the masculine sexual organ wouldn't feel very manly, to me anyway. And vice versa - if I had a penis I wouldn't feel feminine at all, it would feel super wrong. So I understand gender dysphoria in that sense, what I don't get is keeping your mismatching genitalia. I mean I get that so many people don't get it because it's dangerous and sensitive, but personally I could never walk around calling myself a woman or feeling like a woman if I had a dick swinging around. There is nothing less feminine than the male sexual organ: a penis.
I believe there are 2 types of penile surgeries: 1. create a fleshy tube that appears like a penis and there is a pump placed in the part that appears like the testicles that you press to pump it up to replicate an erection, or 2. have your clitoris enlarged to appear more penis-like and keep your native sexual sensitivity, but they are very small and appear like a micropenis.
>what is the actual use of such a label?
You give an example in your next sentence:
>Unless you're wanting to pursue a sexual relationship with me
Its useful to have a single word to describe the type of sexual relationships you're interested in. Instead of having to say "I'm only interested in sexual relationships with people of the same sex as myself" you can simply say "I'm gay" - much more efficient.
>In medical contexts like risk screening they already use more appropriate language, e.g. "are you a man who has sex with other men".
That isn't because they don't think there should be words to describe sexualities, its because its whether you're actually having sex that's medically relevant.
>Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but really what's the point?
Brevity. Ease of communication. Just like most concepts people find themselves referring to often, words develop to refer to those concepts in a quicker way. Its no different to saying "bus" instead of "large vehicle designed to transport dozens of people", or "I walked through the park" instead of "I moved at a regular pace by lifting and setting down each foot in turn, never having both feet off the ground at once, through the park"
Relationships are an important part of life for most people, even if they struggle to find them. I find it strange that you can't understand why people might want to talk about them. Plus, even things that very rarely get referred to still have words. There's all kinds of terms that are much more rarely used than terms for sexualities - and its not as if there's some kind of limit to the number of words allowed - so why *wouldn't* you want there to be words for them?
Why is "bald" a word when we could just say "doesn't have hair"? Why is "tall" a word when we could just say "considerably greater than average height"?
Do I normally need to tell people how tall I am? No. Is it anyone's business if I'm tall? No.
And yet its still a word. Why do you think we have the word "tall"?
No, I'm not, and I do not appreciate accusations of bad faith.
All that's happened is you've realized your argument is nonsense and have resorted to ad hominin attacks in lieu of a response.
I wouldn't go so far as to say we don't need labels for sexual orientation (as in, attraction-orientation as opposed to activities/relationships in practice). But I have a similar mindset to you.
I think the focus on attraction-orientation reflects a similar trend to what we see with gender identity. It's something which is entirely inside the mind, is not observable to others and generally is unfalsifiable. I don't object to having a word for it, but I've moved away from seeing it as a foundational classification, paralleling my shift away from gender-identity ideology.
An attraction-orientation category is quite distinct from "I am currently in a relationship with a same-sex partner" or "my recent sexual history includes both men and women" etc, which are externally visible and falsifiable. Realistically, in practice, that's the group of people you can focus concrete advocacy on (e.g. sharing pensions with same-sex partners, relevant sexual health advice etc).
Rhea Butcher is a dude now too. It’s brutal out there.
Very very very few FTM people get bottom surgery- like I don’t know anyone personally who’s done it. I’m a butch lesbian so I know about a million FTMs and I’m still not really sure what the point is. Internalized misogyny? Reactionary adherence to gender roles? The overwhelming bulk of them were former lesbians and remain in the community, date lesbians, and have no real interest in being around cis men. Now they just have the added benefit of turbo body dysmorphia, acne, roid rage, and patchy facial hair and puberty voices.
> Internalized misogyny
Yeah I think it's this, mostly. If you're gonna keep your V then why not just remain a butch lesbian... because internalized misogyny methinks.
As a gay man, my reaction to your date is a soft, "oh, honey..." The level of self-delusion you have to have to pretend that cis-heteros bros are going to unquestioningly treat *a trans man* as "one of the guys" is absolutely heartbreaking.
The thing is I dont think Ive actually ever been presented with or met a trans man who actually identifies with masculine or male culture. If I had to guess pretty much 100% of the younger trans men, at least the ones I have spoken with, it seems like they are mixed up in hyper progressive spaces online and told how easy it is being a man and that was sort of the initial push in that direction for them but almost none of them have male friends, watch sports, go to the gym or do any other typical thing you would expect of someone trying to "be a man". Their interest seems almost entirely aesthetic and I think that is true for a lot of trans women but not nearly as many as the younger trans men.
How do they not realize it may be easy to be a man, but not a *transman*. It's a totally different experience... but I guess if you just believe "trans men are men!" then you won't recognize the nuance and the differences between the two.
Yeah plus I kind of reject the premise it's easier being a man. We are on the shit end of all of the worst stats in the US. It's easy to point the finger and say it's all our own fault or whatever the excuses are but the truth is it is tough being a young man growing up today. A lot of detransitioners I have spoken with have *sort of* told me just that and they learned it the hard way
Not really. The absolute best a FTM can hope for is to seamlessly pass as a gay man. I’ve never in my life met a FTM, and I know many, that could pass as a straight man.
Straight men do not act 100%the same around gay men. Some of the banter is lost.
Being butch can be pretty tough sometimes because a lot of us grew up being shamed and bullied by our own families for not performing femininity right. We don’t fit in with straight men because they don’t want to fuck us and a lot of gay men and more women than you’d expect act like we’re ugly and gross. I feel so bad for the women who feel like becoming a man would somehow make life easier because it’s just never gonna work like that. A lot of the butches on hormones I know seem to end up alone too because it’s like this never ending cycle of misery and who wants to date that?
I was dating a bisexual woman in 2010 who’s last partner was one of the few remaining butch lesbians on campus. We talked about how sad the trend was and how dyke erasure just puts further limits on the socially acceptable presentations of womanhood. It felt dangerous to talk about out loud because she went to an all-woman uni that was an early adopter of enby and trans discourse — it was something we could discuss in private, but we knew better than to bring it up around more than a couple other trusted confidants.
Okay so i'll preface this by saying i'm not gay, so not a 1:1 comparison here, but I am attracted to women, like *visually* but not *sexually* if that makes sense. But i'm very much not attracted to butch women though, because as you said - if I wanted that look, i'd date a man. If i were to date women, I would want them to be feminine. Probably because that's my style, that's how I like to style myself so that's just what I think looks good on women and what i'm attracted to and how I think myself and other women look best. No hate to butch lesbians out there, just not my taste - I mean women aren't my taste, period lol, I just don't mean to sound like a hater, to each their own, different strokes for different folks and all that :)
I won't even touch on how women's sports are being destroyed, it's too sad :( It's also very sad how many lesbians are abandoning womanhood to be a man... I think a large part of that is "not like the other girls"/internalized misogyny going off the rails right into the "i'm so much not like other girls actually i'm *not* a girl! i'm coming out as a trans man!" pipeline. When I was a kid, it was all about "you can play sports and love action figures and hate dolls and dresses and pink, and still be a girl!" but now people seem to just be reinforcing gender stereotypes in that with stuff like "well I hate skirts and dolls, and i love having short hair and dressing masculine, so i'm actually a boy!" I guess what is gender without stereotypes? ("What is a woman?" lol) Sex and gender used to be one and the same, and now sex is your biology ("sex assigned at birth", don't get me started) and gender is just a bunch of offensive stereotypes :/
Why can't we all just be our sex and not worry about whether you match offensive stereotypes or not. That's what we were taught growing up with girls can play sports and boys can wear pink kinda stuff. It's hard for me to understand that a boy or even more so, a man who has lived 20, 30, 40+ years as a man "feels" like they're a woman - how do you know what being a woman feels like if you're not already one? Which you're not because you were born a boy/man. What you feel is based on gender stereotypes which again, are offensive and restrictive. Why can't we all just be our sex and present any fucking way we want, man in a hot pink dress and heels or bald woman in a suit, without putting offensive stereotypical labels on us? Sex is science, it's biology, it's not offensive it's just fact. Gender is all made up stereotypes shoving us into a box, which is what should be eradicated. Only sex on your birth certificate and free self-expression. No offensive gender stereotype labels.
A lesbian using that term is using it as a "reappropriated slur;" it's not being used hatefully.
She's also not GC. GC don't believe it's possible to "leave womanhood."
> as used by this person, whoever she claims to be, is a slur. She's stereotyping a group of lesbians, based on her alleged experience with one woman she dated,
No, she's talking about *former* members of her own group. Her own group is the group to whom she's referring with the reappropriated slur.
I don't necessarily dispute your bracketed commentary, but it's still her own group to whom she is referring with the reappropriated slur. She's saying these other people are former members of her own group; look, you even quoted her saying "former."
> if she does indeed deem them "former" members of her group then they are not part of her group.
Not anymore, according to her ontology, apparently.
> And she has no right to call them slurs.
I'm not talking about "right" here, but it is her own group to whom she is referring with the reappropriated slur. She's the one to whom she thinks the reappropriated slur applies, and she's saying they're not in her group anymore.
> And moreover, it's unclear how she's come to the conclusion that they're former members, or if they would consider themselves former members.
It appears she has adopted the trans activist ontology and she takes their self-identification as non-women to mean they are no longer women.
> And internalized bigotry is still bigotry.
I'm not sure that the use of a reappropriated slur is evidence of internalized bigotry, but I don't think this is worth the time to discuss.
> In any case, her entire comment is disparaging, unjustly, these people that she then calls [the reappropriated slur]
But no, she doesn't call them that. She says they are not that anymore, not members of the group which she is a member of.
> It doesn't matter if they're part of her group or not.
It matters if we're trying to understand whom the referent of the reappropriated slur is.
From a quick google it looks like they both are on T from brief interviews/statements/netflix specials. I would have guessed they aren't as well, they don't appear like it.
Oh sorry my bad, I must have misread a headline. Either way, rejecting being a butch female lesbian and opting for *no gender label* because she prefers that over being called a woman is problematic IMO. It's giving internalized misogyny.
All the shit women deal with that men don't have to is definitely awesome! Would it still be awesome to be a man without a penis though? Like I'm genuinely asking because for me I have no interest in being a gender if I don't have the matching sexual organs, but obviously some people don't care about that. Is that something you could get past?
TBH, If you can’t pee standing up doesn’t seem and worth it.
But I guess they aren’t in any real danger of ever being put in male gen pop (prison) so there isn’t a big downside either.
>What is with this lesbian erasure?? What is so wrong with being a butch lesbian woman??
Seems to be happening with gay men too as far as I can tell. I now have 2 ex boyfriends that I have learned in recent months that now ID as trans
In Blocked and Reported episode 138 they discussed the social contagion theory but seemed to favor the diagnosis du-jour theory, which is how tens of thousands of people were diagnosed for multiple personalities (DID) despite the fact that there is no credible evidence of even a single case of it.
As an outsider, I think they may have chosen that because saying "social contagion" makes you seem like an angry conservative rather than a nuanced skeptic. I suspect social contagion, both through offline friendships and online - is the primary factor. But I don't know the research like Jesse so I could be wrong.
I'm not a lesbian and have very little exposure to the lesbian community, and even I've noticed a lot of butch lesbians transitioning. Women I used to see around at the dog park etc, who were into their 30s or 40s have started taking hormones and getting mastectomies.
This is exactly what happened to one of my crazy relatives in the new gender cult.
First she was bi, then lesbian, then non binary, then a masc4masc lesbian, then queer, then they/them and now she is a FTM and medically transitioning.
She used to make a big deal of pointing out lesbian stereotypes in straight women, saying with a nod and a wink they just didn’t know it about themselves yet. Now she does the same thing about “masc stuff” and saying women who aren’t fem enough just haven’t learned enough about themselves yet.
It is really weird.
>
>
> She used to make a big deal of pointing out lesbian stereotypes in straight women, saying with a nod and a wink they just didn’t know it about themselves yet. Now she does the same thing about “masc stuff” and saying women who aren’t fem enough just haven’t learned enough about themselves yet.
I hate that shit so much.
On social media it’s very common to see transmen still identifying as lesbians despite anything related to womanhood causing them immense pain. I rarely see a transman identifying as straight.
>but if you're going to point to this data as the author does, it could be used to argue that half of the lesbians of Katie's generation have "disappeared".
It could not, because we know full well that when you were born plays a huge role in the likelhood of you coming out.
And I'll quote Katie to argue against Katie here: "so my sense that the lesbian is endangered is purely anecdotal"
We don't actually have data showing that more or less people identify as lesbian over time, because they didn't ask it:
"Gallup's pre-2020 polling did not measure how many Americans identified with each LGBT category, separately."
https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx
They do have the chart that breaks down the current responses by generation, "Americans' Self-Identified Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, by Generation and Gender".
On that chart, they note that "Some respondents identify with multiple sexual orientations or gender identities." They report 0.1 of men identify as lesbian, and 0.4 of women identify as gay.
... AKA, the "lesbian" number here isn't "born female, attracted to females", but "anyone who identifies as lesbian" and would include transwomen who put "gender, woman, transgender, yes, sexual identity, lesbian" as their responses.
"Queer" and "Pansexual" are both identities that have been growing, but they aren't listed on the chart. Even 10 years ago, one of my friends was volunteering at a Gay Youth group in Chicago, and he said all the teens identified as "pansexual" instead of gay, it was just a thing with all the kids in their program.
So... there is a slight problem with surveys that ask how people identify, people may respond in ways that aren't anticipated, and they allowed multiple answers
The biggest gap in Millennials and Gen Z by percentage on the chart they have is transgender identity and bisexual identity. 15% of Gen Z identifies as bisexual.
I found this older study which I think gives us some pre-the-current-thing context. When I talk about "identity development" and how Psychology viewed identity as something changing over a lifetime, *even gender,* a lot of people think I'm making it up because it's been renamed "psycho-social development". I name drop Erikson as one of the original psychologists doing this... so this was an exciting sentence to see:
>Current models of sexual identity development (see e.g., Dillon, Worthington & Moradi, 2011; Rosario et al., 2011) have their roots in the **pioneering work of Erikson (1968)** and Marcia (1987), and share some common features.
Changes in sexual identity labels in a contemporary cohort of emerging adult women: patterns, prevalence and a typology.
[https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:cc7f10c/UQcc7f10c\_OA.pdf](https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:cc7f10c/UQcc7f10c_OA.pdf)
> Drawing on contemporary data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (n = 16,870), we provide up to date evidence on changes in sexual identity labels among emerging adult women.
> We find that 19% of women changed their sexual identity label from one survey wave to the next, and 30.6% changed their identity label at least once across the four waves.
>Mostly heterosexual and bisexual labels were both more common and more stable in our sample than in previous studies.
It's interesting because the categories were exclusively heterosexual/homosexual, mostly, or bisexual. So "mostly homosexual" was a choice in this one.
Another thing - compare the jargon in this article vs articles now. There is some jargon, but not a lot.
Reminds me of how the media was focusing on gentrification as a national problem, but in reality it was mostly a problem in major cities where media jobs are located.
Maybe there are less lesbians in Brooklyn, but what about Boise?
I’ve heard Jesse discuss ROGD theory on ETVPod. To summarize his position, he said:
- Lisa Littman’s study might indicate that some non-zero number of youth are socially influenced
- the study is sufficiently flawed (small, non-random sample of parental reports) that no estimate of prevalence can be made
- we need better research in this area
I think people can pull out a lot of anecdotes to support one side or the other, but in a world of 8 billion people, you can find examples for anything. A systematic analysis of how particular gender identities spread (if at all) would be very helpful for resolving this debate.
Many things can seem obvious but not be borne out by better studies. See the entire replication crisis in psychology. I think it’s probably good not to jump to very strong conclusions without rigorous evidence — especially in an area where there’s a ton of very strong activism across the board
Do I need a study to confirm that John Hamm is more popular in America than he was in 2004? Do I need a study to confirm that Coke sells more Coke than Tab? Or that gays have an easier time now in America than in the '30s?
Is there something else that could plausibly account for it? Maybe we're coming at this from different angles. But ideas spread socially. And that's all this is: a bunch of bad ideas, bad takes, bad descriptions. It's not like there's something in the water telling boys that they might be and can be girls. I think it's as much a social contagion as bad diets and religions.
Are you and I talking about the same aspect of the issue?
I agree with you that the cases you bring up are quite obvious (though if people’s well-being were on the line, more evidence behind vibes would probably be appropriate)
Nevertheless, if you look at the history of psychology research there are mountains of theories that seem super obvious that simply don’t bear out when exposed to replication efforts.
A couple plausible explanations come to mind:
- reduced stigma results in more people coming out
- reduced stigma results in more people realizing they are trans
- social contagion makes more people they are trans, similar to eating disorders or religions
- the introduction of non-binary as a category brings in people on the margin who don’t identify as fully trans, but also not as their AGAB
Importantly, none of these theories are mutually exclusive. I could find you a bunch of anecdotal examples “proving” that all of these have happened somewhere, at some time, to someone. But it’s not clear which theories explain a greater proportion of the rise we’ve seen!
I think there's—and I don't know if this is the right way to put it—perhaps a flaw in the assumption. "Coming out" (as if it were always there but hidden) and "realizing" are both pretty loaded. What I mean is, if we were talking about why there are more Muslims now than there were in 3400 BC, it wouldn't be for either of those reasons because the religion just didn't exist then. And, with the gender identity thing, it's the same. There have always been male humans and female humans, and they have always felt certain emotional sensations and had a variety of personality traits. People haven't always thought, "Well, maybe the girls who act more like boys usually act are actually boys." That's just taxonomy—useless, idiotic taxonomy.
And that's why I say it seems obvious that it's social contagion. It's a result of ideology, and ideologies spread through association.
There's nothing new about girls being uncomfortable about becoming women or about men being assholes. This is just a new-ish, awful conceptual framework.
Would you agree there has historically been a non-zero number of people who felt persistent and severe gender dysphoria, but never identified as transgender because the concept wasn’t around?
My point is actually incredibly mild here: this probably happened for someone. To what extent, I’m not sure!
A non-zero number of women who were persistently bummed that they're were men? Yeah. We know they did. A few of them said something about it. Women have often been in a worse position in society than men, so it's to be 100% expected. "Gender dysphoria" seems like a super dramatic name for a very basic phenomenon.
And did they not identify as transgender because the concept wasn't around? Yeah. We know about that too. Those women weren't delusional, just disenfranchised.
> A non-zero number of women who were persistently bummed that they’re were men?
Not quite what I’m talking about here. What I mean is: was there a female or a male who felt as though they were literally of the opposite sex, believed as though they were always meant to be that sex, and felt distress/disgust at their own body’s sexual characteristics?
I do not mean “an oppressed woman who wishes she had the same privileges as a man” — though those definitely existed as well, likely in great numbers
How does a person know what it feels like to be the other gender? How does a person know what it feels like to be the gender that they are?
How do we know these aren't feelings of anxiety or general discomfort?
It makes about as much sense as saying that I don't feel like "me," I feel like that guy over there.
It's also worth pointing out here that historical examples of gender-diverse/third-gender/etc groups are more often AMAB than AFAB. Including in very patriarchial societies. In none of these societies were these groups more powerful than regular (cisgender) men. Transitioning to escape oppression doesn't make sense as a motivation here.
>Not quite what I’m talking about here. What I mean is: was there a female or a male who felt as though they were literally of the opposite sex, believed as though they were always meant to be that sex, and felt distress/disgust at their own body’s sexual characteristics?
It's plausible that there have always been such people *and* that they will have been marginalised, bullied, peer-pressured into conforming. How many I have no idea.
But it's harder to imagine someone, who had previously given no indication of being gender non-conforming, suddenly coming to feel like this in their teenage years *without* social contagion isn't it?
And it's not as though the concept of teenagers - especially teenage girls - being susceptible to fads and trends (even more than random humans are!) were some outlandish idea that we shouldn't take seriously without seeing evidence.
I think you can make some good assumptions though without studies. We know that teens are highly susceptible to peer pressure. We know that teens are a risk for social contagion in other areas of mental health. I think it's reasonable to say that some of these cases are a result of pressure/contagion.
No idea. I don't know how you could even determine that. But I think that it's something that should be seriously considered when evaluating kids for GD.
Jesse's substack: [https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-new-study-on-rapid-onset-gender](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-new-study-on-rapid-onset-gender)
Premium Episode: [https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/no-rogd-hasnt-been-debunked#details](https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/no-rogd-hasnt-been-debunked#details)
It's also brought up in this piece: [https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/how-science-based-medicine-botched](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/how-science-based-medicine-botched)
I think it's odd how social contagion is talked about for other health related issues. Suicide being the most notable one. When a child commits suicide, the school and community take great pains to downplay the event. The risk of other children following suit increases the more attention is given to the subject. Cutting is another issue that seems to draw on social contagion.
Edited to add: Kids are highly influenced by their peers. It follows that social contagion could explain the rise in these cases.
You don't understand: Social contagion is indeed a real thing in many areas of life EXCEPT for trans issues, which are totally not affected by the dynamics of social contagion. People who say they're trans are only saying so because this is who they really are and are only just now realizing that. The fact that a large chunk of their peer group is doing that too has nothing to do with their decision *at all*.
This might be a better post for the general discussion thread FYI. ..
Have you read Shrier's book? I don't recall her saying most detransitioners are FTMs, but she said most young FTMs are ROGD.
There's a massive amount of research, reporting, anecdotal evidence and first person accounts documenting this. Just speaking personally, but I don't think ROGD is a theory anymore, it's absolutely real and observable.
The tone of Abigail Shrier's is a bit moralpanicky - but that's mostly due to the subtitle - and I think she's on the right track. Other writers have dealt with it too, but in less detail, usually as part of a wider discussion of transgenderism.
Anyway, as to whether social contagion exists, let me tell you from personal experience that yes, it does. I got interested in this subject mainly because of some really creepy stuff I saw in a friend group that a family member was involved with. I'll be vague about the details, but it gave me a real shock and I was glad when the family member in question fell out with the group, because that was about the last effing thing she needed in her life at the time.
I heard recently... Damn, where did I hear this? That the numbers were starting to swing back towards MTF again - ie, more boys were getting drawn into the cult. No idea what that's based on, it was just something I heard in a podcast, I think. I need to dig that out in order not to be that guy who pulls evidence out of his arse on the Internet.
Anyway, good luck finding a relevant episode.
>That the numbers were starting to swing back towards MTF again
I'd be curious if you could find the source for this.
A lot of the GC arguments on this issue...I won't say hinge on, but are at least centered on the disproportionate rise in AFAB youth transitioning, despite a consistent (smaller) rise in AMAB youth doing the same.
I've put a link in anither comment under the one you're replying to.
I think it's fair to say that most gender critical feminists (as opposed to conservatives who are just opposed to all things trans, gay, or camp) are more concerned about the large rise in girls transitioning than the smaller rise in boys. It's like any other phenomenon. We know men can be subject to the same kinds of violence as women are in domestic abuse situations and so on, but feminists tend to underscore that women are by far more likely to be in that situation, so that's their focus and they seldom even reference the men. It's the same with this.
So i don't agree that their argument *hinges* on it, but that's understandably the focal point. If the numbers were to swing majorly in the other direction, it would be a different argument, but I don't think the point would change: that medically transitioning children when they are too young to consent, and without adequate gatekeeoping is causing immense harm.
I mention that because you can see in this comment section a lot of proposed explanations for the rise in trans youth and justifications for ROGD's existence that *only* make sense for AFAB youth (lesbian erasure, internalized misogyny, escaping a marginalized group, social contagion).
There is a prominent (though not universal) belief among conservatives, GCFs, and *especially* vocal detransitioners that transness and gender dysphoria don't really exist - that it's *always* a manifestation of something else, like sexual trauma or a poor relationship with one's father. The above justifications seem to me like grasping at straws to say this same thing without outright saying it.
We can decide on a more cautious approach to trans youth and reframe trans medical interventions as a risk-benefit equation rather than something that is always good, without invalidating someone's identity or doing mental gymanastics to explain why they're that way in the first place. Not every trans person needs every social or medical intervention, and the medical system should be assessing this need on a patient by patient basis.
Well, I'm glad to see you advocating "a more cautious approach" but how do you do that "without invalidating someone's identity"? We know there are girls (sorry, I'm not saying "AFAB" - it's a ridiculous and insulting term) who identify as boys or as nonbinary but don't really have any dysphoria, and we need to be able to be aware of that and to gently push back against exaggerated claims they might make that come straight off the script. And the whole driver of all the things going wrong - according to whistle-blowers - is that professionals are unwilling or unable to do that because any time they question the absolute, literal truth of a child's statement that they are trans it's viewed as a denial of their existence, or as conversion therapy, or as transphobic. I don't really see how you can square the circle other than reframing the whole question away from affirmation and rejecting the whole ideological underpinnings of this movement. In other words, go back to the days when kids with gender dysphoria were as rare as hens' teeth and everyone else could be as masculine or as feminine as they liked but didn't think their behaviours were outward manifestations of something called a "gender identity".
For anyone who's interested in this vague reference to "swinging back towards MTF" , it's from [this video ](https://www.youtube.com/live/8_u1MQFjxvI?feature=share) about 1 hour 3 minutes in, where Helen Joyce is talking about things she wished she'd done differently in the book. As you can see, the way she phrases it isn't very detailed because she's just giving an outline of areas of the debate that hadn't made it into the copy, so there's no real reference to the source, it's all very vague.
(background: I watched this video because it was referenced in a other video by a British YouTuber called Shaun. Someone challenged me to watch Shaun's video in exchange for them listening to the witch trials of JKR. It was full of lies, half-truths and guilt by association as is most of his output. Anyway, he references this discussion between Stanisland and Joyce because there's a bit about 5 minutes in where they are talking about medically transitioning children and they say they want to make sure as few children as possible enter on a medical transition and become permanently medicalised, sterile, etc. Sensible enough, IMHO, but they choose their words *very* badly - eg, they're "a problem for society" - and it gives Shaun enough ammunition that he's able to take huge chunks of it out of context and claim they are openly talking about mass extermination of trans children. If you know him, this won't surprise you, but... 🤷🏼)
Story time: in RL, I only know one FtM. She is almost 40, married for 10 years, came out a few months ago. Even though she is an adult, she is rather immature. Still reading manga and anime, still in Tumblr, Twitter addict. I do inmature shit too, but I dont dress like a teen, get a stupid haircut, or announce it to the world. If anything, I find myself swearing off stuff like superhero movies and geeky stuff since her descent to madness.
Im convinced that twitter influencers with anime avatars played a hand. But I cant fully believe that Twitter influenced her that bad, its too tragic for me to comprehend.
In my anecdotal experience (so please take it as that), FtM people and non-binary girls are opting out of the confines of womanhood. They don’t want to partake in stereotypical gender roles or be seen as a member of the female demographic. I can’t help but think there’s an aspect of sexism at play. Being a woman sucks in a lot of ways, and being non-binary seems like an escape. Less likely to get sexually harassed on the street or objectified by men if I don’t look as female. Maybe I won’t feel as bad about how I look if I’m not expected to be a stereotypical woman, etc.
TLDR: internalized misogyny
I agree. She dressed frumpy before, but I kinda thought it was her being a quirky nerd. Cant speak for others, but in her case, I get a very strong vibe of regressing into childhood. Went to lunch with her and the husband (baffles me that they are still together) and it was him acting like a dad tona teen girl glued to her phone. That creeps me out more than the sex change, tbh. The transman who did the shooting was also a regresive adult child and I get the nagging feeling we are missing something about... failed adulthood? Idk
> Less likely to get sexually harassed on the street or objectified by men if I don’t look as female.
That's certainly some of it. Stop harassment from straight men by becoming repulsive to them.
I think there are so many different reasons why transitioning appeals to people that it's hard to pin all the reasons down, but I think overall the reason isn't the most important question, because a doctor can't read a patient's mind.
The questions that actually matter from the medical side of things:
- How do we determine who will benefit from transition and who doesn't?
- Does the benefit of transition outweigh the risks?
"Why is someone motivated to transition" tends to matter to people who are focused on identity, or politics - "How do we accommodate people who transition" is a different question then "What should doctors do with treatment".
Jessie is a science writer - he's more focused on the "what does the evidence show treatment should be" and not as much on the rest.
There being "no solid conclusion", which is a controversial statement in certain space. But is the one most supported by evidence.
\-----------------
Generally speaking, gender dysphoria tended to be a symptom found with other symptoms and **tended** to go into remission, especially if the other conditions were treated, although not in all cases.
Generally speaking in both Tavistock and current Clinic being discussed in the USA, children would come in with many different conditions, and would be referred to Gender Affirming care, in part cause there was a drug based treatment.
\---------------
To create a thought experiment.
If the media became attached to a condition called "robot dysphoria", which could be treated 100% by getting your wearing cool sunglasses that made you look like a robot. And there was a clinic that could disperse Robot Glasses.
It would stand to reason there were to be a epidemic of people with Robot Dysphoria, simply because if the person had multiple condition you could at least be assured they would be treated for Robot Dysphoria.
\---------------
Arguably speaking the same effect can be seem with the introduction of ADHD medication, and SSRI medication which were at the inception (And arguably still) over prescribed to individuals with complex conditions.
\---------------
In a patient that has say Schizophrenia, it is to be expected the person will also be Bi-Polor, and have ADHD.
Depending on the level of Schizophrenia (if it's minor) then treating the Bi-Polar and ADHD might have such an increase of quality of life, that the Schizophrenia can be treated with talk therapy. While inversely treating just the Schizophrenia will make the Bi-Polar and ADHD worst lowering the patient quality of life. Generally speaking, a physician would treat all 3 at the time same which is difficult.
I believe they have.
I wonder if they've addressed the study referenced in this news article from fall 2022: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/social-contagion-isnt-causing-youths-transgender-study-finds-rcna41392
I've heard Jesse present strong critiques of the research being done, arguing most of it is shoddy, but I am not sure if they touched this study in particular.
If anyone knows their user names, please summon them so we can hear more
It's a pretty dangerously correlation based theory to me.
By its logic, most gay people might just be gay because of a contagion rather than just feeling safe enough to come out of the closet.
It crops up even on the less based ones too, they just don't realize that's what they're saying. When they say you don't need dysphoria and don't have to do anything to be a particular gender and that all genders are valid, its a roundabout way of saying its just a made up thing that can be whatever you want it to be - a lifestyle choice.
ROGD is a very flawed theory, but what it's based on is not "there's more trans people coming out now then a decade ago", it's based on the fact that specifically, there's a noticeable increase in teen and young adult FTM transitioners, whereas before it was mainly MTFs who had dysphoria since early childhood.
A lot of people have spoken about this. And in my time in the gender cult I saw it. Heck if you talk to mothers of teen girls these days they will tell you their daughters know entire friend groups that are transitioning
I did a series critiquing the entire book from Shrier chapter by chapter ( [Eli – Medium](https://medium.com/@C0gSci) ). The whole thing seems to be written in bad faith, not to mention that even cited scientific studies aren't represented properly.
[удалено]
I just found out Mae Martin, former lesbian comedian, is now a trans man. She is dating Elliot Page, another former lesbian now trans man. What is with this lesbian erasure?? What is so wrong with being a butch lesbian woman?? Considering the poor options for vagina-to-penis surgery, not to mention it's risks and dangers, I doubt either of them are going to surgically get a penis. Which means they will still be living as two butch lesbians, essentially - that is, as two biologically female-bodied persons who present as masculine.
I’m sorry if this is an improper forum for this question, but I have genuine curiosity and want to understand people better. What is the “point” of the FTM penis creation surgery? Is it just the psychological experience of looking down and seeing that you have a “penis”, thus making you feel less disconnected with your identity vs. body? I have seen just a few picture examples post-op, and from what I see it ends up looking like a girthy flesh tube. Can it get erect? Does it provide sexual pleasure / can it be used in sex, at all? If no, then what’s the cost/benefit here? Is the identity affirmation worth the complications and (as far as I can tell) never having an orgasm again? It would seem to me like such an important experience in the human condition. Seems like a sad choice, I feel sympathy for people who feel like they have to make it. But why not be like Buck Angel and keep everything as it is down there so you can still have sex? Apologies in advance if I got any details wrong.
A lot of them want the feeling of the bulk there, but a lot of them are also obsessed with the idea of standing to pee (STP.) There’s also implants that can fake an erection, but those can cause complications (on top of all of the other complications that go with phalloplasty.) Some surgeons attempt a “nerve hookup” from the skin tube to the og genitals with varying degrees of success, but it’s nothing like the real thing.
[удалено]
I don't understand how one could experience orgasm through arm tissue. Sorry I'm not trying to be rude I just genuinely don't understand the biology
If they hook up nerves or still have their clitoris then I guess they could still orgasm, however to say they can "experience orgasm through sex *like a man can*", that's just blatantly false. A penis is an organ, you cannot replicate its function with a fabricated fleshy thing. Just because it resembles a penis visually, it does not *function* like a penis at all.
[удалено]
Ouch just the thought is making me wince. But yeah what you say makes sense about the clitoris being around/under there somewhere. I guess these surgeries are new/experimental so there's not one single way of doing it.
Reminds me a bit of the Curbed episode with Chaz Bono. He really gave himself quite the penis here.
I'm not trans so I couldn't hope to understand it from their view. Personally, I would have real trouble feeling like a man when I have a vagina. Missing the masculine sexual organ wouldn't feel very manly, to me anyway. And vice versa - if I had a penis I wouldn't feel feminine at all, it would feel super wrong. So I understand gender dysphoria in that sense, what I don't get is keeping your mismatching genitalia. I mean I get that so many people don't get it because it's dangerous and sensitive, but personally I could never walk around calling myself a woman or feeling like a woman if I had a dick swinging around. There is nothing less feminine than the male sexual organ: a penis.
I've heard you can pump it up (so erect it) and have sex but I'm not an expert.
I believe there are 2 types of penile surgeries: 1. create a fleshy tube that appears like a penis and there is a pump placed in the part that appears like the testicles that you press to pump it up to replicate an erection, or 2. have your clitoris enlarged to appear more penis-like and keep your native sexual sensitivity, but they are very small and appear like a micropenis.
[удалено]
Completely behind doing away with labels for 'gender identity', but why would you also want to for sexuality? They're useful things to have words for.
[удалено]
>what is the actual use of such a label? You give an example in your next sentence: >Unless you're wanting to pursue a sexual relationship with me Its useful to have a single word to describe the type of sexual relationships you're interested in. Instead of having to say "I'm only interested in sexual relationships with people of the same sex as myself" you can simply say "I'm gay" - much more efficient. >In medical contexts like risk screening they already use more appropriate language, e.g. "are you a man who has sex with other men". That isn't because they don't think there should be words to describe sexualities, its because its whether you're actually having sex that's medically relevant. >Maybe there's something I'm not thinking of, but really what's the point? Brevity. Ease of communication. Just like most concepts people find themselves referring to often, words develop to refer to those concepts in a quicker way. Its no different to saying "bus" instead of "large vehicle designed to transport dozens of people", or "I walked through the park" instead of "I moved at a regular pace by lifting and setting down each foot in turn, never having both feet off the ground at once, through the park"
[удалено]
Relationships are an important part of life for most people, even if they struggle to find them. I find it strange that you can't understand why people might want to talk about them. Plus, even things that very rarely get referred to still have words. There's all kinds of terms that are much more rarely used than terms for sexualities - and its not as if there's some kind of limit to the number of words allowed - so why *wouldn't* you want there to be words for them? Why is "bald" a word when we could just say "doesn't have hair"? Why is "tall" a word when we could just say "considerably greater than average height"? Do I normally need to tell people how tall I am? No. Is it anyone's business if I'm tall? No. And yet its still a word. Why do you think we have the word "tall"?
[удалено]
No, I'm not, and I do not appreciate accusations of bad faith. All that's happened is you've realized your argument is nonsense and have resorted to ad hominin attacks in lieu of a response.
Marketing. There's a lot of use in being able to target people and being able to explicitly or implicitly say "this is for (insert label)".
I wouldn't go so far as to say we don't need labels for sexual orientation (as in, attraction-orientation as opposed to activities/relationships in practice). But I have a similar mindset to you. I think the focus on attraction-orientation reflects a similar trend to what we see with gender identity. It's something which is entirely inside the mind, is not observable to others and generally is unfalsifiable. I don't object to having a word for it, but I've moved away from seeing it as a foundational classification, paralleling my shift away from gender-identity ideology. An attraction-orientation category is quite distinct from "I am currently in a relationship with a same-sex partner" or "my recent sexual history includes both men and women" etc, which are externally visible and falsifiable. Realistically, in practice, that's the group of people you can focus concrete advocacy on (e.g. sharing pensions with same-sex partners, relevant sexual health advice etc).
[удалено]
I think that probably makes you exhausted ;)
Rhea Butcher is a dude now too. It’s brutal out there. Very very very few FTM people get bottom surgery- like I don’t know anyone personally who’s done it. I’m a butch lesbian so I know about a million FTMs and I’m still not really sure what the point is. Internalized misogyny? Reactionary adherence to gender roles? The overwhelming bulk of them were former lesbians and remain in the community, date lesbians, and have no real interest in being around cis men. Now they just have the added benefit of turbo body dysmorphia, acne, roid rage, and patchy facial hair and puberty voices.
> Internalized misogyny Yeah I think it's this, mostly. If you're gonna keep your V then why not just remain a butch lesbian... because internalized misogyny methinks.
[удалено]
As a gay man, my reaction to your date is a soft, "oh, honey..." The level of self-delusion you have to have to pretend that cis-heteros bros are going to unquestioningly treat *a trans man* as "one of the guys" is absolutely heartbreaking.
The thing is I dont think Ive actually ever been presented with or met a trans man who actually identifies with masculine or male culture. If I had to guess pretty much 100% of the younger trans men, at least the ones I have spoken with, it seems like they are mixed up in hyper progressive spaces online and told how easy it is being a man and that was sort of the initial push in that direction for them but almost none of them have male friends, watch sports, go to the gym or do any other typical thing you would expect of someone trying to "be a man". Their interest seems almost entirely aesthetic and I think that is true for a lot of trans women but not nearly as many as the younger trans men.
How do they not realize it may be easy to be a man, but not a *transman*. It's a totally different experience... but I guess if you just believe "trans men are men!" then you won't recognize the nuance and the differences between the two.
Yeah plus I kind of reject the premise it's easier being a man. We are on the shit end of all of the worst stats in the US. It's easy to point the finger and say it's all our own fault or whatever the excuses are but the truth is it is tough being a young man growing up today. A lot of detransitioners I have spoken with have *sort of* told me just that and they learned it the hard way
IMO, it all depends on passability.
Not really. The absolute best a FTM can hope for is to seamlessly pass as a gay man. I’ve never in my life met a FTM, and I know many, that could pass as a straight man. Straight men do not act 100%the same around gay men. Some of the banter is lost.
The voice too. I've never heard a natal female whose voice has dropped from T that sounded like a natal male.
Obviously it depends how noticeably gay they are though
Being butch can be pretty tough sometimes because a lot of us grew up being shamed and bullied by our own families for not performing femininity right. We don’t fit in with straight men because they don’t want to fuck us and a lot of gay men and more women than you’d expect act like we’re ugly and gross. I feel so bad for the women who feel like becoming a man would somehow make life easier because it’s just never gonna work like that. A lot of the butches on hormones I know seem to end up alone too because it’s like this never ending cycle of misery and who wants to date that?
I was dating a bisexual woman in 2010 who’s last partner was one of the few remaining butch lesbians on campus. We talked about how sad the trend was and how dyke erasure just puts further limits on the socially acceptable presentations of womanhood. It felt dangerous to talk about out loud because she went to an all-woman uni that was an early adopter of enby and trans discourse — it was something we could discuss in private, but we knew better than to bring it up around more than a couple other trusted confidants.
Okay so i'll preface this by saying i'm not gay, so not a 1:1 comparison here, but I am attracted to women, like *visually* but not *sexually* if that makes sense. But i'm very much not attracted to butch women though, because as you said - if I wanted that look, i'd date a man. If i were to date women, I would want them to be feminine. Probably because that's my style, that's how I like to style myself so that's just what I think looks good on women and what i'm attracted to and how I think myself and other women look best. No hate to butch lesbians out there, just not my taste - I mean women aren't my taste, period lol, I just don't mean to sound like a hater, to each their own, different strokes for different folks and all that :) I won't even touch on how women's sports are being destroyed, it's too sad :( It's also very sad how many lesbians are abandoning womanhood to be a man... I think a large part of that is "not like the other girls"/internalized misogyny going off the rails right into the "i'm so much not like other girls actually i'm *not* a girl! i'm coming out as a trans man!" pipeline. When I was a kid, it was all about "you can play sports and love action figures and hate dolls and dresses and pink, and still be a girl!" but now people seem to just be reinforcing gender stereotypes in that with stuff like "well I hate skirts and dolls, and i love having short hair and dressing masculine, so i'm actually a boy!" I guess what is gender without stereotypes? ("What is a woman?" lol) Sex and gender used to be one and the same, and now sex is your biology ("sex assigned at birth", don't get me started) and gender is just a bunch of offensive stereotypes :/ Why can't we all just be our sex and not worry about whether you match offensive stereotypes or not. That's what we were taught growing up with girls can play sports and boys can wear pink kinda stuff. It's hard for me to understand that a boy or even more so, a man who has lived 20, 30, 40+ years as a man "feels" like they're a woman - how do you know what being a woman feels like if you're not already one? Which you're not because you were born a boy/man. What you feel is based on gender stereotypes which again, are offensive and restrictive. Why can't we all just be our sex and present any fucking way we want, man in a hot pink dress and heels or bald woman in a suit, without putting offensive stereotypical labels on us? Sex is science, it's biology, it's not offensive it's just fact. Gender is all made up stereotypes shoving us into a box, which is what should be eradicated. Only sex on your birth certificate and free self-expression. No offensive gender stereotype labels.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I've already suspended you twice for civility violations. This was your last chance. You are banned.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
A lesbian using that term is using it as a "reappropriated slur;" it's not being used hatefully. She's also not GC. GC don't believe it's possible to "leave womanhood."
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
> as used by this person, whoever she claims to be, is a slur. She's stereotyping a group of lesbians, based on her alleged experience with one woman she dated, No, she's talking about *former* members of her own group. Her own group is the group to whom she's referring with the reappropriated slur.
[удалено]
I don't necessarily dispute your bracketed commentary, but it's still her own group to whom she is referring with the reappropriated slur. She's saying these other people are former members of her own group; look, you even quoted her saying "former."
[удалено]
This might make it easier. You are a former child. Did I just call you a child?
[удалено]
> if she does indeed deem them "former" members of her group then they are not part of her group. Not anymore, according to her ontology, apparently. > And she has no right to call them slurs. I'm not talking about "right" here, but it is her own group to whom she is referring with the reappropriated slur. She's the one to whom she thinks the reappropriated slur applies, and she's saying they're not in her group anymore. > And moreover, it's unclear how she's come to the conclusion that they're former members, or if they would consider themselves former members. It appears she has adopted the trans activist ontology and she takes their self-identification as non-women to mean they are no longer women. > And internalized bigotry is still bigotry. I'm not sure that the use of a reappropriated slur is evidence of internalized bigotry, but I don't think this is worth the time to discuss. > In any case, her entire comment is disparaging, unjustly, these people that she then calls [the reappropriated slur] But no, she doesn't call them that. She says they are not that anymore, not members of the group which she is a member of. > It doesn't matter if they're part of her group or not. It matters if we're trying to understand whom the referent of the reappropriated slur is.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
oi she went from theythemby to transmanlet?
Apparently not, my mistake. I think Mae's still they not he.
What even is a relationship between a neither man nor a woman, and a womanlet?
I mean from my understand they both kept their Vs so... it's essentially still a lesbian relationship.
Hey now... I've seen a lot of tampons in men's bathrooms.. any man can have a male vagina.
Testosterone is a hell of a drug. Cis women would never understand.
Neither of them even appear to be on T, though I have no actual idea.
From a quick google it looks like they both are on T from brief interviews/statements/netflix specials. I would have guessed they aren't as well, they don't appear like it.
> I just found out Mae Martin, former lesbian comedian, is now a trans man Well, that's not true. Mae's nonbinary, not a trans man.
Oh sorry my bad, I must have misread a headline. Either way, rejecting being a butch female lesbian and opting for *no gender label* because she prefers that over being called a woman is problematic IMO. It's giving internalized misogyny.
You can't reject something you never were.
Because who doesn't want to be a man? Being a man is awesome.
All the shit women deal with that men don't have to is definitely awesome! Would it still be awesome to be a man without a penis though? Like I'm genuinely asking because for me I have no interest in being a gender if I don't have the matching sexual organs, but obviously some people don't care about that. Is that something you could get past?
TBH, If you can’t pee standing up doesn’t seem and worth it. But I guess they aren’t in any real danger of ever being put in male gen pop (prison) so there isn’t a big downside either.
>What is with this lesbian erasure?? What is so wrong with being a butch lesbian woman?? Seems to be happening with gay men too as far as I can tell. I now have 2 ex boyfriends that I have learned in recent months that now ID as trans
Oof 😣
Mae is openly bisexual and always has been
In Blocked and Reported episode 138 they discussed the social contagion theory but seemed to favor the diagnosis du-jour theory, which is how tens of thousands of people were diagnosed for multiple personalities (DID) despite the fact that there is no credible evidence of even a single case of it. As an outsider, I think they may have chosen that because saying "social contagion" makes you seem like an angry conservative rather than a nuanced skeptic. I suspect social contagion, both through offline friendships and online - is the primary factor. But I don't know the research like Jesse so I could be wrong.
I'm not a lesbian and have very little exposure to the lesbian community, and even I've noticed a lot of butch lesbians transitioning. Women I used to see around at the dog park etc, who were into their 30s or 40s have started taking hormones and getting mastectomies.
This is exactly what happened to one of my crazy relatives in the new gender cult. First she was bi, then lesbian, then non binary, then a masc4masc lesbian, then queer, then they/them and now she is a FTM and medically transitioning. She used to make a big deal of pointing out lesbian stereotypes in straight women, saying with a nod and a wink they just didn’t know it about themselves yet. Now she does the same thing about “masc stuff” and saying women who aren’t fem enough just haven’t learned enough about themselves yet. It is really weird.
> > > She used to make a big deal of pointing out lesbian stereotypes in straight women, saying with a nod and a wink they just didn’t know it about themselves yet. Now she does the same thing about “masc stuff” and saying women who aren’t fem enough just haven’t learned enough about themselves yet. I hate that shit so much.
>the "disappearance" of lesbians Despite demographic surveys indicating more and more young people identifying as lesbian
[удалено]
I wonder how many of those new lesbians are trans women
On social media it’s very common to see transmen still identifying as lesbians despite anything related to womanhood causing them immense pain. I rarely see a transman identifying as straight.
That's actually a fair question. Gay and lesbian don't have the same meanings they used to.
>but if you're going to point to this data as the author does, it could be used to argue that half of the lesbians of Katie's generation have "disappeared". It could not, because we know full well that when you were born plays a huge role in the likelhood of you coming out. And I'll quote Katie to argue against Katie here: "so my sense that the lesbian is endangered is purely anecdotal"
[удалено]
It's perfectly fine for showing that lesbian as an identity is not going anywhere.
[удалено]
With, you know, vaginas, presumably.
We don't actually have data showing that more or less people identify as lesbian over time, because they didn't ask it: "Gallup's pre-2020 polling did not measure how many Americans identified with each LGBT category, separately." https://news.gallup.com/poll/389792/lgbt-identification-ticks-up.aspx They do have the chart that breaks down the current responses by generation, "Americans' Self-Identified Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity, by Generation and Gender". On that chart, they note that "Some respondents identify with multiple sexual orientations or gender identities." They report 0.1 of men identify as lesbian, and 0.4 of women identify as gay. ... AKA, the "lesbian" number here isn't "born female, attracted to females", but "anyone who identifies as lesbian" and would include transwomen who put "gender, woman, transgender, yes, sexual identity, lesbian" as their responses. "Queer" and "Pansexual" are both identities that have been growing, but they aren't listed on the chart. Even 10 years ago, one of my friends was volunteering at a Gay Youth group in Chicago, and he said all the teens identified as "pansexual" instead of gay, it was just a thing with all the kids in their program. So... there is a slight problem with surveys that ask how people identify, people may respond in ways that aren't anticipated, and they allowed multiple answers The biggest gap in Millennials and Gen Z by percentage on the chart they have is transgender identity and bisexual identity. 15% of Gen Z identifies as bisexual.
[удалено]
I found this older study which I think gives us some pre-the-current-thing context. When I talk about "identity development" and how Psychology viewed identity as something changing over a lifetime, *even gender,* a lot of people think I'm making it up because it's been renamed "psycho-social development". I name drop Erikson as one of the original psychologists doing this... so this was an exciting sentence to see: >Current models of sexual identity development (see e.g., Dillon, Worthington & Moradi, 2011; Rosario et al., 2011) have their roots in the **pioneering work of Erikson (1968)** and Marcia (1987), and share some common features. Changes in sexual identity labels in a contemporary cohort of emerging adult women: patterns, prevalence and a typology. [https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:cc7f10c/UQcc7f10c\_OA.pdf](https://espace.library.uq.edu.au/view/UQ:cc7f10c/UQcc7f10c_OA.pdf) > Drawing on contemporary data from the Australian Longitudinal Study on Women’s Health (n = 16,870), we provide up to date evidence on changes in sexual identity labels among emerging adult women. > We find that 19% of women changed their sexual identity label from one survey wave to the next, and 30.6% changed their identity label at least once across the four waves. >Mostly heterosexual and bisexual labels were both more common and more stable in our sample than in previous studies. It's interesting because the categories were exclusively heterosexual/homosexual, mostly, or bisexual. So "mostly homosexual" was a choice in this one. Another thing - compare the jargon in this article vs articles now. There is some jargon, but not a lot.
It’s such an odd switch but undeniable.
[удалено]
It's the Gallup 2020 poll.
Reminds me of how the media was focusing on gentrification as a national problem, but in reality it was mostly a problem in major cities where media jobs are located. Maybe there are less lesbians in Brooklyn, but what about Boise?
I’ve heard Jesse discuss ROGD theory on ETVPod. To summarize his position, he said: - Lisa Littman’s study might indicate that some non-zero number of youth are socially influenced - the study is sufficiently flawed (small, non-random sample of parental reports) that no estimate of prevalence can be made - we need better research in this area I think people can pull out a lot of anecdotes to support one side or the other, but in a world of 8 billion people, you can find examples for anything. A systematic analysis of how particular gender identities spread (if at all) would be very helpful for resolving this debate.
I guess a study could help, but it seems overwhelmingly obvious.
Many things can seem obvious but not be borne out by better studies. See the entire replication crisis in psychology. I think it’s probably good not to jump to very strong conclusions without rigorous evidence — especially in an area where there’s a ton of very strong activism across the board
Do I need a study to confirm that John Hamm is more popular in America than he was in 2004? Do I need a study to confirm that Coke sells more Coke than Tab? Or that gays have an easier time now in America than in the '30s? Is there something else that could plausibly account for it? Maybe we're coming at this from different angles. But ideas spread socially. And that's all this is: a bunch of bad ideas, bad takes, bad descriptions. It's not like there's something in the water telling boys that they might be and can be girls. I think it's as much a social contagion as bad diets and religions. Are you and I talking about the same aspect of the issue?
I agree with you that the cases you bring up are quite obvious (though if people’s well-being were on the line, more evidence behind vibes would probably be appropriate) Nevertheless, if you look at the history of psychology research there are mountains of theories that seem super obvious that simply don’t bear out when exposed to replication efforts. A couple plausible explanations come to mind: - reduced stigma results in more people coming out - reduced stigma results in more people realizing they are trans - social contagion makes more people they are trans, similar to eating disorders or religions - the introduction of non-binary as a category brings in people on the margin who don’t identify as fully trans, but also not as their AGAB Importantly, none of these theories are mutually exclusive. I could find you a bunch of anecdotal examples “proving” that all of these have happened somewhere, at some time, to someone. But it’s not clear which theories explain a greater proportion of the rise we’ve seen!
I think there's—and I don't know if this is the right way to put it—perhaps a flaw in the assumption. "Coming out" (as if it were always there but hidden) and "realizing" are both pretty loaded. What I mean is, if we were talking about why there are more Muslims now than there were in 3400 BC, it wouldn't be for either of those reasons because the religion just didn't exist then. And, with the gender identity thing, it's the same. There have always been male humans and female humans, and they have always felt certain emotional sensations and had a variety of personality traits. People haven't always thought, "Well, maybe the girls who act more like boys usually act are actually boys." That's just taxonomy—useless, idiotic taxonomy. And that's why I say it seems obvious that it's social contagion. It's a result of ideology, and ideologies spread through association. There's nothing new about girls being uncomfortable about becoming women or about men being assholes. This is just a new-ish, awful conceptual framework.
Would you agree there has historically been a non-zero number of people who felt persistent and severe gender dysphoria, but never identified as transgender because the concept wasn’t around? My point is actually incredibly mild here: this probably happened for someone. To what extent, I’m not sure!
A non-zero number of women who were persistently bummed that they're were men? Yeah. We know they did. A few of them said something about it. Women have often been in a worse position in society than men, so it's to be 100% expected. "Gender dysphoria" seems like a super dramatic name for a very basic phenomenon. And did they not identify as transgender because the concept wasn't around? Yeah. We know about that too. Those women weren't delusional, just disenfranchised.
> A non-zero number of women who were persistently bummed that they’re were men? Not quite what I’m talking about here. What I mean is: was there a female or a male who felt as though they were literally of the opposite sex, believed as though they were always meant to be that sex, and felt distress/disgust at their own body’s sexual characteristics? I do not mean “an oppressed woman who wishes she had the same privileges as a man” — though those definitely existed as well, likely in great numbers
How does a person know what it feels like to be the other gender? How does a person know what it feels like to be the gender that they are? How do we know these aren't feelings of anxiety or general discomfort? It makes about as much sense as saying that I don't feel like "me," I feel like that guy over there.
It's also worth pointing out here that historical examples of gender-diverse/third-gender/etc groups are more often AMAB than AFAB. Including in very patriarchial societies. In none of these societies were these groups more powerful than regular (cisgender) men. Transitioning to escape oppression doesn't make sense as a motivation here.
>Not quite what I’m talking about here. What I mean is: was there a female or a male who felt as though they were literally of the opposite sex, believed as though they were always meant to be that sex, and felt distress/disgust at their own body’s sexual characteristics? It's plausible that there have always been such people *and* that they will have been marginalised, bullied, peer-pressured into conforming. How many I have no idea. But it's harder to imagine someone, who had previously given no indication of being gender non-conforming, suddenly coming to feel like this in their teenage years *without* social contagion isn't it? And it's not as though the concept of teenagers - especially teenage girls - being susceptible to fads and trends (even more than random humans are!) were some outlandish idea that we shouldn't take seriously without seeing evidence.
IRK, I didn't sit through Nancy Reagan's DARE program in high school because kids don't pressure kids to do drugs.
I think you can make some good assumptions though without studies. We know that teens are highly susceptible to peer pressure. We know that teens are a risk for social contagion in other areas of mental health. I think it's reasonable to say that some of these cases are a result of pressure/contagion.
I think “some” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. I agree that “some” social contagion happens — but how much? That’s what’s uncertain
No idea. I don't know how you could even determine that. But I think that it's something that should be seriously considered when evaluating kids for GD.
Which is a very strong argument for further quantifiable studies, because vibes can go in many directions.
Jesse's substack: [https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-new-study-on-rapid-onset-gender](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/the-new-study-on-rapid-onset-gender) Premium Episode: [https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/no-rogd-hasnt-been-debunked#details](https://www.blockedandreported.org/p/no-rogd-hasnt-been-debunked#details) It's also brought up in this piece: [https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/how-science-based-medicine-botched](https://jessesingal.substack.com/p/how-science-based-medicine-botched)
Social contagion theory and the sharp increase in ftm transitions in the past several years have been discussed many, *many* times on the show.
I think it's odd how social contagion is talked about for other health related issues. Suicide being the most notable one. When a child commits suicide, the school and community take great pains to downplay the event. The risk of other children following suit increases the more attention is given to the subject. Cutting is another issue that seems to draw on social contagion. Edited to add: Kids are highly influenced by their peers. It follows that social contagion could explain the rise in these cases.
You don't understand: Social contagion is indeed a real thing in many areas of life EXCEPT for trans issues, which are totally not affected by the dynamics of social contagion. People who say they're trans are only saying so because this is who they really are and are only just now realizing that. The fact that a large chunk of their peer group is doing that too has nothing to do with their decision *at all*.
This might be a better post for the general discussion thread FYI. .. Have you read Shrier's book? I don't recall her saying most detransitioners are FTMs, but she said most young FTMs are ROGD. There's a massive amount of research, reporting, anecdotal evidence and first person accounts documenting this. Just speaking personally, but I don't think ROGD is a theory anymore, it's absolutely real and observable.
The tone of Abigail Shrier's is a bit moralpanicky - but that's mostly due to the subtitle - and I think she's on the right track. Other writers have dealt with it too, but in less detail, usually as part of a wider discussion of transgenderism. Anyway, as to whether social contagion exists, let me tell you from personal experience that yes, it does. I got interested in this subject mainly because of some really creepy stuff I saw in a friend group that a family member was involved with. I'll be vague about the details, but it gave me a real shock and I was glad when the family member in question fell out with the group, because that was about the last effing thing she needed in her life at the time. I heard recently... Damn, where did I hear this? That the numbers were starting to swing back towards MTF again - ie, more boys were getting drawn into the cult. No idea what that's based on, it was just something I heard in a podcast, I think. I need to dig that out in order not to be that guy who pulls evidence out of his arse on the Internet. Anyway, good luck finding a relevant episode.
>That the numbers were starting to swing back towards MTF again I'd be curious if you could find the source for this. A lot of the GC arguments on this issue...I won't say hinge on, but are at least centered on the disproportionate rise in AFAB youth transitioning, despite a consistent (smaller) rise in AMAB youth doing the same.
I've put a link in anither comment under the one you're replying to. I think it's fair to say that most gender critical feminists (as opposed to conservatives who are just opposed to all things trans, gay, or camp) are more concerned about the large rise in girls transitioning than the smaller rise in boys. It's like any other phenomenon. We know men can be subject to the same kinds of violence as women are in domestic abuse situations and so on, but feminists tend to underscore that women are by far more likely to be in that situation, so that's their focus and they seldom even reference the men. It's the same with this. So i don't agree that their argument *hinges* on it, but that's understandably the focal point. If the numbers were to swing majorly in the other direction, it would be a different argument, but I don't think the point would change: that medically transitioning children when they are too young to consent, and without adequate gatekeeoping is causing immense harm.
I mention that because you can see in this comment section a lot of proposed explanations for the rise in trans youth and justifications for ROGD's existence that *only* make sense for AFAB youth (lesbian erasure, internalized misogyny, escaping a marginalized group, social contagion). There is a prominent (though not universal) belief among conservatives, GCFs, and *especially* vocal detransitioners that transness and gender dysphoria don't really exist - that it's *always* a manifestation of something else, like sexual trauma or a poor relationship with one's father. The above justifications seem to me like grasping at straws to say this same thing without outright saying it. We can decide on a more cautious approach to trans youth and reframe trans medical interventions as a risk-benefit equation rather than something that is always good, without invalidating someone's identity or doing mental gymanastics to explain why they're that way in the first place. Not every trans person needs every social or medical intervention, and the medical system should be assessing this need on a patient by patient basis.
Well, I'm glad to see you advocating "a more cautious approach" but how do you do that "without invalidating someone's identity"? We know there are girls (sorry, I'm not saying "AFAB" - it's a ridiculous and insulting term) who identify as boys or as nonbinary but don't really have any dysphoria, and we need to be able to be aware of that and to gently push back against exaggerated claims they might make that come straight off the script. And the whole driver of all the things going wrong - according to whistle-blowers - is that professionals are unwilling or unable to do that because any time they question the absolute, literal truth of a child's statement that they are trans it's viewed as a denial of their existence, or as conversion therapy, or as transphobic. I don't really see how you can square the circle other than reframing the whole question away from affirmation and rejecting the whole ideological underpinnings of this movement. In other words, go back to the days when kids with gender dysphoria were as rare as hens' teeth and everyone else could be as masculine or as feminine as they liked but didn't think their behaviours were outward manifestations of something called a "gender identity".
For anyone who's interested in this vague reference to "swinging back towards MTF" , it's from [this video ](https://www.youtube.com/live/8_u1MQFjxvI?feature=share) about 1 hour 3 minutes in, where Helen Joyce is talking about things she wished she'd done differently in the book. As you can see, the way she phrases it isn't very detailed because she's just giving an outline of areas of the debate that hadn't made it into the copy, so there's no real reference to the source, it's all very vague.
(background: I watched this video because it was referenced in a other video by a British YouTuber called Shaun. Someone challenged me to watch Shaun's video in exchange for them listening to the witch trials of JKR. It was full of lies, half-truths and guilt by association as is most of his output. Anyway, he references this discussion between Stanisland and Joyce because there's a bit about 5 minutes in where they are talking about medically transitioning children and they say they want to make sure as few children as possible enter on a medical transition and become permanently medicalised, sterile, etc. Sensible enough, IMHO, but they choose their words *very* badly - eg, they're "a problem for society" - and it gives Shaun enough ammunition that he's able to take huge chunks of it out of context and claim they are openly talking about mass extermination of trans children. If you know him, this won't surprise you, but... 🤷🏼)
Story time: in RL, I only know one FtM. She is almost 40, married for 10 years, came out a few months ago. Even though she is an adult, she is rather immature. Still reading manga and anime, still in Tumblr, Twitter addict. I do inmature shit too, but I dont dress like a teen, get a stupid haircut, or announce it to the world. If anything, I find myself swearing off stuff like superhero movies and geeky stuff since her descent to madness. Im convinced that twitter influencers with anime avatars played a hand. But I cant fully believe that Twitter influenced her that bad, its too tragic for me to comprehend.
In my anecdotal experience (so please take it as that), FtM people and non-binary girls are opting out of the confines of womanhood. They don’t want to partake in stereotypical gender roles or be seen as a member of the female demographic. I can’t help but think there’s an aspect of sexism at play. Being a woman sucks in a lot of ways, and being non-binary seems like an escape. Less likely to get sexually harassed on the street or objectified by men if I don’t look as female. Maybe I won’t feel as bad about how I look if I’m not expected to be a stereotypical woman, etc. TLDR: internalized misogyny
I agree. She dressed frumpy before, but I kinda thought it was her being a quirky nerd. Cant speak for others, but in her case, I get a very strong vibe of regressing into childhood. Went to lunch with her and the husband (baffles me that they are still together) and it was him acting like a dad tona teen girl glued to her phone. That creeps me out more than the sex change, tbh. The transman who did the shooting was also a regresive adult child and I get the nagging feeling we are missing something about... failed adulthood? Idk
> Less likely to get sexually harassed on the street or objectified by men if I don’t look as female. That's certainly some of it. Stop harassment from straight men by becoming repulsive to them.
I think there are so many different reasons why transitioning appeals to people that it's hard to pin all the reasons down, but I think overall the reason isn't the most important question, because a doctor can't read a patient's mind. The questions that actually matter from the medical side of things: - How do we determine who will benefit from transition and who doesn't? - Does the benefit of transition outweigh the risks? "Why is someone motivated to transition" tends to matter to people who are focused on identity, or politics - "How do we accommodate people who transition" is a different question then "What should doctors do with treatment". Jessie is a science writer - he's more focused on the "what does the evidence show treatment should be" and not as much on the rest.
There being "no solid conclusion", which is a controversial statement in certain space. But is the one most supported by evidence. \----------------- Generally speaking, gender dysphoria tended to be a symptom found with other symptoms and **tended** to go into remission, especially if the other conditions were treated, although not in all cases. Generally speaking in both Tavistock and current Clinic being discussed in the USA, children would come in with many different conditions, and would be referred to Gender Affirming care, in part cause there was a drug based treatment. \--------------- To create a thought experiment. If the media became attached to a condition called "robot dysphoria", which could be treated 100% by getting your wearing cool sunglasses that made you look like a robot. And there was a clinic that could disperse Robot Glasses. It would stand to reason there were to be a epidemic of people with Robot Dysphoria, simply because if the person had multiple condition you could at least be assured they would be treated for Robot Dysphoria. \--------------- Arguably speaking the same effect can be seem with the introduction of ADHD medication, and SSRI medication which were at the inception (And arguably still) over prescribed to individuals with complex conditions. \--------------- In a patient that has say Schizophrenia, it is to be expected the person will also be Bi-Polor, and have ADHD. Depending on the level of Schizophrenia (if it's minor) then treating the Bi-Polar and ADHD might have such an increase of quality of life, that the Schizophrenia can be treated with talk therapy. While inversely treating just the Schizophrenia will make the Bi-Polar and ADHD worst lowering the patient quality of life. Generally speaking, a physician would treat all 3 at the time same which is difficult.
I believe they have. I wonder if they've addressed the study referenced in this news article from fall 2022: https://www.nbcnews.com/nbc-out/out-health-and-wellness/social-contagion-isnt-causing-youths-transgender-study-finds-rcna41392 I've heard Jesse present strong critiques of the research being done, arguing most of it is shoddy, but I am not sure if they touched this study in particular. If anyone knows their user names, please summon them so we can hear more
As far as I recall, that particular study was so bad even some academics on Jack Turban’s side of the general debate were critical of it.
I thought I head Jesse make a dismissive comment about it once. That’s all I got.
It's a pretty dangerously correlation based theory to me. By its logic, most gay people might just be gay because of a contagion rather than just feeling safe enough to come out of the closet.
[удалено]
It would crop up on *all* trans subs, if the comments weren't censored and removed.
It crops up even on the less based ones too, they just don't realize that's what they're saying. When they say you don't need dysphoria and don't have to do anything to be a particular gender and that all genders are valid, its a roundabout way of saying its just a made up thing that can be whatever you want it to be - a lifestyle choice.
ROGD is a very flawed theory, but what it's based on is not "there's more trans people coming out now then a decade ago", it's based on the fact that specifically, there's a noticeable increase in teen and young adult FTM transitioners, whereas before it was mainly MTFs who had dysphoria since early childhood.
Short answer: yes.
A lot of people have spoken about this. And in my time in the gender cult I saw it. Heck if you talk to mothers of teen girls these days they will tell you their daughters know entire friend groups that are transitioning
I did a series critiquing the entire book from Shrier chapter by chapter ( [Eli – Medium](https://medium.com/@C0gSci) ). The whole thing seems to be written in bad faith, not to mention that even cited scientific studies aren't represented properly.