21–30 of 46 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote, but your original comment is (to me at least) an unreadable, massive wall of links and quotes, that's hard to scan visually for a hint of its content, taking up unusually many screen-fuls on my mobile client. This is only conjecture, but maybe some people who downvoted wanted to signal that they would have preferred a contribution that is more inviting and accessible to the reader.
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A shout-out and thank-you to the transphobes who downvoted this without replying and explaining why they hate trans people so much, proving my point that they know they're wrong and don't have a leg to stand on to justify their bigotry, because their arguments and justifications for their hatred won't withstand scrutiny. If I've convinced them to finally shut the fuck up and instead just silently downvote in shame wi…
I didn't downvote, but your original comment is (to me at least) an unreadable, massive wall of links and quotes, that's hard to scan visually for a hint of its content, taking up unusually many screen-fuls on my mobile client. This is only conjecture, but maybe some people who downvoted wanted to signal that they would have preferred a contribution that is more inviting and accessible to the reader.
Sophie Wilson, the designer of the ARM architecture, is also a trans woman.
As a trans kid on the "early" (early-2000s) Internet, Lynn Conway and Wendy Carlos were the first trans people I was aware of who were not movie jokes or villains. I owe a lot to the handful of trans folks who were among the first people to have a web presence at all.
No kidding. It's a shame so many of that "old guard" are married to some...pretty outdated ideas of what being trans is, but they still had to fight a lot of shit we don't.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I didn't downvote, but your original comment is (to me at least) an unreadable, massive wall of links and quotes, that's hard to scan visually for a hint of its content, taking up unusually many screen-fuls on my mobile client. This is only conjecture, but maybe some people who downvoted wanted to signal that they would have preferred a contribution that is more inviting and accessible to the reader.
I felt similarly. The OP was too long and unreadable. Not liking the comment has nothing to do with transphobia.
[flagged]
Much of the dreg published back then by Bailey, Blanchard, Raymond and others has long since been discredited by the scientific community and before you say anything: no, not because of ‘wokeism gone mad’.
One pillar of their research back then (and in part - to this day) was insisting trans women are men who suffer from a condition called autogynephilia (a fetish for seeing oneself as an attractive woman - the theory Dreger is referring to). And yes, a considerable amount of trans women met the standards he set for this condition. But it turns out, the percentage is even higher among cis (non-trans) women. 93% of them qualify. I guess the remaining 7% are the real women.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/19591032/
If you are sincerely interested I recommend reading the works of Julia Serano. This piece about the book you mentioned is a great place to start: http://juliaserano.blogspot.com/2015/04/alice-dreger-and-mak... If you’re just looking for ammunition to throw at trans people because you don’t like them existing, as very much seems to be the case with Alice Dreger, I can only hope you’ll find a more meaningful and positive way to spend your time.
[flagged]
Dreger is not exactly a neutral party in this. You can’t take her words as some sort of neutral account of what happened. If you don’t want trans people and specifically trans women to exist it’s very easy to use words like ‘trying to ruin’ to describe well-deserved criticism and rebuttal. That too, is a fundamental part of the scientific method. Much of the dreg published back then by Bailey, Blanchard, Raymond and…
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02359-8
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Dreger is not exactly a neutral party in this. You can’t take her words as some sort of neutral account of what happened. If you don’t want trans people and specifically trans women to exist it’s very easy to use words like ‘trying to ruin’ to describe well-deserved criticism and rebuttal. That too, is a fundamental part of the scientific method. Much of the dreg published back then by Bailey, Blanchard, Raymond and…
As it turns out, Moser’s research is a result of motivated reasoning and is flawed. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02359-8