stan logic

that may be true for a lot of right wing people (e.g. american conservatives denying climate change, or christian creationists denying evolution) but a political bias is still a bias and being subjective in science isn’t a good thing. also just to be entirely clear i’m not right wing or conservative by any means.

here are some quotes from the sources i listed in the post that show what i mean:

[Psychology being left-wing] discouraged conservative students from joining the field, and it discouraged conservative members from pursuing certain lines of argument.

The topics that social psychologists chose to study and how they chose to study them, he argued, suffered from homogeneity.

“It’s not like the whole field is undercut, but when it comes to research on controversial topics, the effect is most pronounced,” he later told me.

“The same people who are exquisitely sensitive to discrimination in other areas are often violently antagonistic when it comes to political ideology, bringing up clichéd arguments that they wouldn’t accept in other domains: ‘They aren’t smart enough.’ 'They don’t want to be in the field.’ ”

“Science benefits from diverse perspectives, and key advances often occur when ideas slip across disciplinary borders. But many invisible norms and practices in a field can discourage the mingling of diverse ideas.”

Political homogeneity, he went on, comes at “a substantial cost” to research quality.

Conservative viewpoints, the Florida State University psychologist Roy Baumeister added, “would inform and elevate how we understand a huge part of life and of culture.”

As the degree of conservatism rose, so, too, did the hostility that people experienced. Conservatives really were significantly more afraid to speak out. Meanwhile, the liberals thought that tolerance was high for everyone.

Now, anyone that knows anything about conformity and social pressures would probably guess that the actual number of conservatives is higher than the number that raised their hands that day.

the american psychiatric association is known for being a left-wing crowd pleaser

dr. nicholas cummings (an ex-apa president) literally admitted this (source)

and whilst he was the apa president in 1979 and the source is from 2005, especially with social media more recent apa members could easily kill their careers for speaking out. i’m not saying this is 100% the case, but psychology has always been a left-wing field (source, source, source, source, source)

also a q&a on their website written by two individuals isn’t really objective fact

to me this is worded really weirdly lol

but like the apa, organisations (especially those somewhat dependent on donations like lambda legal) are often coerced into certain views

and regardless, a legal company aren’t gonna be at the front of transgender science, even if they’re an lgbt focused firm

this source also says that “genderdivers[ity]” includes people who are androgynous. you can be cis and androgynous

gender dysphoria can’t be a mental illness because you can’t “fix” it with therapy or medication that focuses on your brain - most transmeds know this, and most think it’s a neurological disorder

the second link also says “it’s a recognised medical condition”

and whilst yes the last quote says that the distress is due to the disconnect, to me it reads like a ~universal causation~ i.e. the mismatch will cause some level of discomfort or distress as opposed to “some people experience the discomfort or distress”

the source also pretty much point-blank states and consistently implies that the mismatch will cause some levels of discomfort/distress - “treatment for gender dysphoria aims to help reduce or remove the distressing feelings of a mismatch between biological sex and gender identity,” “[adults with gender dysphoria] may also have a strong desire to change or get rid of physical signs of their biological sex,” “the assessment will determine whether you have gender dysphoria and what your needs are, which could include: whether there's a clear mismatch between your biological sex and gender identity [...]”

i’m not debunking the nhs as a source because it comes from a medical (not specifically psychiatric) organisation with clinics and doctors trained specifically to deal with transgender patients, their site has been assessed by an external board, and they don’t really care about being controversial regarding trans people (e.g. their wait times for clinics can go up to 4 years and it’s basically illegal to surpass 18 weeks). i don’t trust them fully but it’s personally the most valid source

if you follow the citation in the first cap, the original proposal states “the diagnostic criteria should be distress based,” nothing about “identity (per se)”

the second cap is just true lol

i think what the person writing the google doc is trying to say is “associated doesn’t mean always” but in a diagnostic sense associated means they’re literally connected. in the same book for example it says “depression is associated with sadness” and the first diagnostic criterion for depression is feeling low

and i know there’s a lot of debate about if the dsm is reliable but that discourse is mostly between the dsm-5 and previous versions - the criteria for gender dysphoria really hasn’t changed, only through semantics

the dsm is a psychiatric manual though, so whilst i may be in agreement with this i don’t know how much i trust it regarding transness

transequality says that there’s nothing inherently upsetting about being trans and that it’s all about society lol. also they aren’t a medical organisation

nbcnews cites the APA’s q&a regarding gender dysphoria. see above

ftmmagazine’s page about gender dysphoria has been taken down

medium’s article is anecdotal

genderanalysis’s is also anecdotal

and just while i’m here, the link provided spreads misinformation about hrt. “if you decide you don’t like hrt, you can easily stop after a month or two with little or no permanent changes” - this may be more true for trans women (who they’re talking about) than trans men, but chest tissue still changes and it only takes a couple of months to become sterile forever, and it definitely isn’t true for trans men on hrt yet this difference isn’t mentioned at all.

it also defines dysphoria as “vivid repulsion” and “strong, clear aversive and negative feelings” towards ones sex characteristics, but there’s a lot more to it than that - a fundamental misunderstanding of dysphoria isn’t a great look for a source about dysphoria

i agree with this! again i think it’s a neurological disorder

however scientificamerican discusses demedicalising being trans full stop, and endorses informed consent

dictionaries aren’t medical resources

wikipedia is useful, but everyone knows it’s unreliable

transstudent doesn’t say that dysphoria or distress isn’t required

rcpsych is a british institute that again talks about “gender diverse people” i.e. androgynous people

transmeds really don’t think there’s a strict 100% male or female brain, just brains with masculine and feminine features and that’s what these sources agree with!

newscientist says “If a neuroscientist was given someone’s brain without their body or any additional information, they would still probably be able to guess if it had belonged to a man or a woman” - that’s the whole point

fastcompany says “Indeed, there are some differences in the brains of men and women. Men’s brains are about 10% bigger than women’s brains, which happens to be about the same as our height and weight difference” - again, that’s the point

sciencedaily says “you often find that the differences are minimal” - there are still differences

plaidzebra discusses a study that only focused on the hippocampus. it also comes from somebody who thinks all of gender is socially constructed (it isn’t. people are trans for a reason)

transmedicalists cite other studies (see the first three sources), but the last two links still provide evidence there are differences, even if minute

them makes the mistake again of thinking “brain sex” means “brains are 100% male or female”

they admit that there is observable difference between a transgender brain and a cisgender brain, but persists in the idea that observing this is transphobic - biology isn’t transphobic

thedailybeast brings up some good points about brain studies potentially leading to eugenics, but i feel like instantly treating trans science as a conspiracy is jumping the gun - the consensus of the people behind these studies is that these studies are to advance transgender care

they also say that lgbt science doesn’t affect the public’s view of lgbt people in any way, but that trans science could see a surge of conversion therapy. so what is the truth?

and they compare the idea of finger length indicating sexuality (from 2000) to brain studies. being transgender has a medical basis, sexuality vs. finger length does not

the guardian conflates gender roles and the effects of gender roles with gender

and they say that they deny brain studies because if brain studies are correct “the oppression of women and queer people has a natural basis” ????

these really aren’t reliable sources about being trans

honestly call me lazy but i’m not gonna touch on this bit as i believe an agender type of identity probably does exist, and a lot of transmeds do as well. if you wanna break it down yourself absolutely go for it

also the APA is bullshit

the links are all broken

that being said, most nb genders that aren’t western don’t apply to our idea of non-binary anyway (it’s like trying to apply fundamental hindu ideas to christianism)

and they tend to come from places of homophobia and misogyny anyway, as ways to punish gender non-conformity, intersex people, women, and homosexuality