Transgender Thread.

[Danoff]

You suggested that I don't see value in transgender research, and while I'm skeptical about the whole field, I can still come up with something positive.

Great, but what does that have to do with what we're talking about? It's like you want me to give you credit to spout logical fallacies just because you threw a bone to transgender diversity something something. It's a non sequitur.

What I was implying with that little remark that triggered you

This is ad hominem. I ignored it the first time, because I do let some of these slide. But what you're doing is claiming that I'm being emotional, and absolutely nothing about me pointing out your use of a motte and bailey fallacy is emotional. It's about as far from it as possible.

is that, in my opinion, academia in "social studies" has more "freedom" to research whatever they want about gender and society in order to gain access to public funding than physicists do in their field.

This is probably the best formulation of your argument to date. You're posting a video of someone saying that supercolliders over promise based on a lack of understanding of particle physics, you're layering on that there's even MORE confusion about social studies than particle physics (you see how when you state it out that it's laughable right?), and then from that you're claiming that there will be more manipulation in social studies grants than Sabine claims there are for particle physics.

Applying a tiny bit of rigor can sometimes expose a really terrible assumption. In this case, that there is more "freedom" in social studies than particle physics. I think you're assuming that because particle physics is hard science that it's less prone to overstatement. What you didn't take into account was the disconnect between understanding of hard physics and people who control grants. I've basically said as much before, but you jogged past it.

But I didn't use that video to prove that—I only said that it affirms my own experience with various project fundings.

You'll have to understand that when you post this many breaches of logic I'm not going to be taking your word for the conclusions you drew from your unnamed and unelaborated experience.

So far in the last few pages, you've posted motte and bailey, ad hominem, and non sequitur. Let's see how many more you can get.

 

[Daniel]

In local news, a law firm in New Zealand has sent out a letter "warning of potential legal action" against healthcare practices who provide gender affirming care.

Te Whatu Ora - New Zealand's public healthcare system - has sent out letters to healthcare services and staff across the country, offering to take the lead in providing legal support:

Letter from Te Whatu Ora

Please be assured that, if any complaints were to be received or legal action taken in respect of gender affirming care provided by health professionals employed by Health New Zealand, the organisation and its legal team would support you and take the lead in responding to any complaints or legal proceedings issued in relation to that care. You would also have access to individual legal support from your own professional indemnity insurer.

 

[novcze]

This is ad hominem. I ignored it the first time, because I do let some of these slide. But what you're doing is claiming that I'm being emotional, and absolutely nothing about me pointing out your use of a motte and bailey fallacy is emotional. It's about as far from it as possible.

I meant that it initiated your response, but okay, I see now that it's usually used when emotions are involved. That's the kind of confusion that comes from using a non-native language.

What you didn't take into account was the disconnect between understanding of hard physics and people who control grants.

I did. She was talking about that disconnect in the video, and I think it exists in social studies as well—where even more "freedom" comes from the ability to leverage the fear of being labeled as transphobic, and social studies are inherently more ambiguous than physics.

 

[Danoff]

I did. She was talking about that disconnect in the video, and I think it exists in social studies as well—where even more "freedom" comes from the ability to leverage the fear of being labeled as transphobic, and social studies are inherently more ambiguous than physics.

You're getting pretty far flung from your supporting evidence. At this point you're saying that the following two things are similar enough to support each other:

1) People issuing grants based on being afraid of being considered transphobic
2) People issuing grants based on lack of particle physics expertise

That's.... well it's just not even in the same ballpark.

Yes, social studies are more ambiguous than physics, but it's an entirely different mechanism you're talking about. It's so different, that it's fear of being called transphobic vs. lack of understanding of particle physics. You can see how there is not much overlap between those two mechanisms right? These are very different things.

What you're doing is called confirmation bias. You heard someone say something bad about grants and you responded by allowing it to confirm some unrelated notion about grants that you already held.

 

[novcze]

You're getting pretty far flung from your supporting evidence. At this point you're saying that the following two things are similar enough to support each other:

1) People issuing grants based on being afraid of being considered transphobic
2) People issuing grants based on lack of particle physics expertise

That's.... well it's just not even in the same ballpark.

Are you still using the video as if it was supposed to be evidence for my opinions?

 

[Danoff]

Are you still using the video as if it was supposed to be evidence for my opinions?

YOU used the video that way, and are continuing to do so. As I said, confirmation bias. You did not post that video here to talk about particle physics.

 

[novcze]

YOU used the video that way, and are continuing to do so. As I said, confirmation bias. You did not post that video here to talk about particle physics.

As I already clarified in the second post after the video, it's just an example.

I'm not saying that everything is BS; it's just an example of how academia works with grants. What's crazy is that she's talking about physicists—imagine the freedom one has in social studies.

Of course, not everyone in academia does this all the time, and I also clarified what I mean by "freedom" in this context.

I did. She was talking about that disconnect in the video, and I think it exists in social studies as well—where even more "freedom" comes from the ability to leverage the fear of being labeled as transphobic, and social studies are inherently more ambiguous than physics.

But you're right—I didn't post it to talk about physics, and I didn't expect to be discussing it for the next two pages. But I do admit that my use of English may have caused some confusion, so I’m not offended by your assumptions.

So if we can make it more on topic, I would have some questions:

Do you think the people who decide on grant allocations always have the necessary expertise to assess the value of research proposals, especially in social studies?

Given that social studies often deal with complex and evolving human behaviors, do you think the inherent ambiguity in the field makes it harder to assess the validity or impact of research?

Do you think the fear of being labeled transphobic influences how research topics in gender studies are funded or discussed?

 

[Danoff]

I didn't expect to be discussing it for the next two pages

It would have taken a lot less time if you'd just thought honestly about what I was saying in the very first response and had done the introspection I suggested. All of this has just been you trying to dodge.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Gavin Newsom, in an interview with far-right influencer Charlie Kirk on his podcast, walks back support for Trans athletes:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/gavin-newsom-breaks-with-democrats-on-trans-athletes-in-sports-00215436

 

[Danoff]

Gavin Newsom, in an interview with far-right influencer Charlie Kirk on his podcast, walks back support for Trans athletes:

https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/06/gavin-newsom-breaks-with-democrats-on-trans-athletes-in-sports-00215436

I think a lot of trans people, and trans-friendly people, are concerned about whether trans athletes can compete fairly in women's brackets. This argument comes up a lot, and it is almost always conceded. I don't think this is the right issue to fight over, and as long as it remains a sticking point it will drive away broad support.


Edit:

Another one that needs to get dropped is that trans women belong in women's prisons. There are a lot of potential ways to keep trans women safe in prison, but just putting them in women's prisons doesn't work. I want trans people to have safety and recognition and rights, and I see both of these issues as big stumbling blocks to that end.

 

[Imari]

Another one that needs to get dropped is that trans women belong in women's prisons. There are a lot of potential ways to keep trans women safe in prison, but just putting them in women's prisons doesn't work. I want trans people to have safety and recognition and rights, and I see both of these issues as big stumbling blocks to that end.

As long as we live in a culture that has a significant proportion of people who violently disagree with trans people even existing, there's nowhere safe to put them. You can put a trans woman in a womens prison or a mens prison, but she's not really going to be safe in either (even insofar as that prisons are kind of inherently unsafe anyway).

I'm not sure that there's a good solution to this at all, at least not as long as the US style punitive prison system is the norm.

 

[Danoff]

As long as we live in a culture that has a significant proportion of people who violently disagree with trans people even existing, there's nowhere safe to put them. You can put a trans woman in a womens prison or a mens prison, but she's not really going to be safe in either (even insofar as that prisons are kind of inherently unsafe anyway).

I'm not sure that there's a good solution to this at all, at least not as long as the US style punitive prison system is the norm.

I kinda think they need their own. And I know that can sound horrible. The idea of a "trans prison" probably just makes peoples' skin crawl with assumptions for how badly they'd be treated. But I can't see leaving a trans woman in a men's prison and I don't think it works for them to be in a women's prison.

Honestly the entire prison system needs an overhaul, I'd change it completely. But I have no confidence in guards or policies to keep trans women safe.

I assume this is not a problem the other way around. I assume that there are no trans men that just really want to be in a men's prison. I could be wrong, but women's prison is just a far easier experience.

 

[Imari]

I kinda think they need their own. And I know that can sound horrible. The idea of a "trans prison" probably just makes peoples' skin crawl with assumptions for how badly they'd be treated. But I can't see leaving a trans woman in a men's prison and I don't think it works for them to be in a women's prison.

Honestly the entire prison system needs an overhaul, I'd change it completely. But I have no confidence in guards or policies to keep trans women safe.

I assume this is not a problem the other way around. I assume that there are no trans men that just really want to be in a men's prison. I could be wrong, but women's prison is just a far easier experience.

Right now, I would agree. In current prisons, I think all you can realistically do is segregate them. It's not right and it shouldn't be the long term goal, but there's a certain level of practicality that needs to be taken to ensure that people aren't being harmed unnecessarily.

I would assume it's still a problem the other way around, but the scale is likely lesser. Trans women are seen as potential traitors/targets by other men or potential invaders/predators by other women. I doubt a trans man is going to have an easy time in a women's prison either, but they're probably not an automatic enemy.

I assume if a trans man were put in a men's prison it would be bad, but rape seems pretty par for the course in men's prisons even without trans men.

Once again, patriarchy ruins everything.

 

[Danoff]

but rape seems pretty par for the course in men's prisons even without trans men

If that's true (in the US or in Australia), and I'm not sure it is for all incarceration experiences, then I'd say we need a prison overhaul. Because the sentence is not rape.

 

[Exorcet]

I think a lot of trans people, and trans-friendly people, are concerned about whether trans athletes can compete fairly in women's brackets. This argument comes up a lot, and it is almost always conceded. I don't think this is the right issue to fight over, and as long as it remains a sticking point it will drive away broad support.

Ignoring the differences that exist between trans and nontrans people is absolutely an issue, though it bothers me that some arguments for excluding trans athletes don't seem to be about fair competition. That discussion shouldn't just boil down to sex because it's a lot more complicated than that and if people are getting emotionally hung up on one detail to the detriment of bettering the situation, I think it should be called out. If the idea of male and female child athletes is so off putting to some people, why don't they also care about the bias toward being born earlier in the year? It comes across as as "anything new is wrong/the way we've always done things is best" which is obviously a problematic way of thinking.