ada

So, there are quite a few flaws with your position.

Firstly, for some reason, you're putting the lens on trans people, and not cis people. Cis society does far more to encourage and sustain gender norms than trans people ever will, simply because there are so many more cis people. If you are genuinely concerned about the harms of gendered roles and how they sustain gender inequality, you should be more worried about the source of those behaviours, and not trans people.

Secondly, if your concerns are about the harms of gender norms, then you should probably acknowledge that trans people are more harshly judged and punished by those norms than cis people are. Trans people have their gender denied to them if they don't perform their gender sufficiently for society. They get misgendered, they get their rights taken away, they get denied access to bathrooms. And to top it off, trans people are also punished for performing their gender roles, and that punishment, again, often takes the form of denying trans people their identity. "If you were really a woman, you wouldn't need to act so feminine to show it"

Thirdly, the premise that "transitioned people are doing their best to fulfill the roles and stereotypes assigned to their desired gender" is incorrect. Or rather, it's as correct and incorrect as it is about cis people. Some trans people adhere to gender norms. Some don't. But again, the difference is, trans people get punished more often and more strongly by those norms, whichever side of the fence they fall on. Your post here is an example of that imbalance, because you are blaming some of the biggest targets of societal inequality for that inequality, despite their complete lack of power and influence

There is no "two sides" here. Enforced gender norms hurt everyone, but they impact trans people more. The idea that there is "two sides" is an example of that. Blaming the victims for their own mistreatment

Like it or not, the distinction is meaningless to people outside of the US

I went on a research deep dive.

I found this https://xgoreghoulx.newgrounds.com/, a video series called House of Puso.

What they're getting at is they don't ask for people who are trans, they ask for people "navigating gender dysphoria".

It's like someone using "females" instead of women.

When you choose that framing, it's often a sign of something deeper at play...

So Littman and Bailey are controversial. Not unethical. (Fyi Lisa Littman is herself a trans woman).

Incorrect. They are both unethical.

Littman for example, when doing her study on rapid onset gender dysphoria, targeted only online spaces which were full of parents that were upset and angry at having a transgender child. Her sample was deliberately and knowingly biased towards supporting the hypothesis she invented. Her audience also didn't involve any trans people, only the parents of trans people, and parents who were, as a group, explicitly more likely to be strongly uncomfortable with the idea of having a trans child.

This wasn't a mistake, or an oversight. It was a deliberate choice she made to bias her results. That's not "controversial", that's outright unethical.

Similarly, Bailey regularly lies to his participant audience, and loads his studies with questions predisposed to get the results he wants to show.

The study linked to in this post is a classic example of that. None of the results of this will be designed to help people navigate dysphoria. The study is trying to draw trans people in to think that they're helping, when in fact, the results will be used to actively undermine their ability to seek transition care and support.

Bailey and Littmans findings make the trans community angry because the research supports that for some trans females, (not all but some) they transition due to a sexual kink. That they can only be sexually excited by being a woman.

Even that's not true.

When you look at the definitions Bailey uses for autogynephilia for example, if you apply those same measures to cis women, it turns out, they too more often than not, meet the requirements for autogynephilia. It only becomes a paraphilia when the woman is trans though, and it only becomes an explanation for the woman's identity, when the woman is trans.

It's taking a real correlation, ignoring the fact that the correlation isn't unique to trans folk, and then using that correlation as an explanation for trans identity.

He never said it's true for all female trans people.

He said it's the only way to be a trans woman that is asexual, bisexual or gay.

The only trans women who don't fit his criteria of transitioning due to a paraphilia, are straight trans women. Who, by the way, he calls "Homosexual transexuals". He can't even recognise their gender... And speaking of that, even though he thinks that trans women who aren't straight should be able to transition, he doesn't think that they're women, and will repeatedly misgender them or talk only about their birth sex when talking about them.

Take a look at this, from his personal blog...

In this screenshot, you can see that whilst defending a woman who had nazis at her rally, he refers to trans women as "male" without ever referring to them as women, whilst also showing a diagram that says all trans activists are paraphillic (and thus, not really trans)

Bailey genuinely believes he is doing good science. But he's not. He's got a lens through which he perceives transgender identity, and he is absolutely not open to challenging that. That's not good science...

I struggle to understand how you can call anything the man does "ethical"

I mean, Kaity and I run a Jellyfin server for our family to access, as well as a couple of friends. But that's about as public as it gets...

What's MLB?

These have been our settings pretty much since we set up pbz

Hi! What's up?

GRUB because of the snapper support. I'll probably try Liminie next time I do a rebuild

Another car free lifer here!

Nope. Data directories and compose files only.