One very cool thing about the #detrans community is that they have totally confounded researchers who tried to use them to support anti-trans propaganda.
Remember Lisa Littman? Her study of parental attitudes established that anti-trans parents think ROGD exists. She tried to follow that up with a study of anti-trans detransitioners, but even that very cherry picked group didn't give her answers that fit the ROGD framework.
Littman's second paper made very little splash. It's a pretty fun read if you dislike Littman and ROGD. You can feel her trying to make the results fit the framework and they just don't.
A similar thing happened with Kinnon MacKinnon's qualitative study of detransitioners. MacKinnon found only 1/3 of the detransitioners interviewed felt any regret over past medical steps.
Detransition propaganda: These are cis women who feel intense regret at ruining their looks and fertility, because that of course is essential to womanhood.
Actual detransitioners: Fuck you copper I'm an NB genderweirdo. I regret nothing! You'll never take me alive!!!!"
The punk rock vibes of the detrans community leave me in awe. Trans people are lucky to have them as siblings.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
If I don't make it, remember me as a guy with a website.
There's a bit of throat clearing, but early on, in the first 15 minutes, Rowling describes her work and it's flooding into my awareness: What a tragedy this has been for her trans fans.
She talks about Potter and magic and says children are drawn to stories of magic bc they feel powerless.
And, fuck... yes. That's why trans people were drawn to Potter, why they loved what she wrote so much. The powerless feeling, yearning for a magical solution, that was us.
A particularly gross story for your Monday morning: Some transphobic assholes are smearing Lia Thomas as a pervert because she may have liked a couple of memes about trans women dating each other from a secret Insta account.
I also used the opportunity to take a quick look at autogynephilia theory and why it's dumb, bad, and only makes sense to haters who've made up their mind and just want an excuse to talk about how much they hate trans women.
The most important thing to know about autogynephilia (AGP) is that it's not really a theory in a modern scientific sense.
It's from an earlier era of psychology where they didn't really "do" research and data and just kinda vibed and made shit up.
I wrote about violent threats vs ambiguously worded expressions of anger, and the double standard on how trans people's words are treated compared to transphobes, even in the wake of the actual murder of a 16-year-old trans girl in the UK.
It's not that ambiguous expressions of anger that might seem to condone violence can't lead to real violence. It's that they have already done so, against trans women, and trans women are held to a ridiculous standard in how they let their anger and grief show.
I read the phrase "if they all had one throat" as plaintive. An expression of the futility of violence- the problem is too big to be dispensed of that way.
But, my reading is besides the point. This sort of phrase always has muliple meanings, and different contexts.
I will do a post with more depth. But Chait starts with a deeply misleading description of Tavistock, where youth were on waiting lists for years without treatment.
Any trans child who shows up for their appointment after years on a waiting list has persisted in their identity.
What can we know from this? We know that Chait is starting from a place of bias. That he has either ignored, misunderstandood or chosen not to seek out the full picture relating to his first example.
The piece is like that throughout.
Later Chait discusses the accout of a self-proclaimed whistleblower in St. Louis, without mentioning many of her basic facts were wrong. For example, one of her objections to testosterone therapy for trans boys is that it causes lifelong infertility, and it simply does not.
One of the ways the anti-trans side plays to the public's biases is by pretending that they're honestly asking questions and reporting the evidence, and being unfairly attacked for doing so.
Articles on affirming care routinely present things true of all or most medications as if they're uniquely concerning.
Like side effects. Most medications have side effects, but the Times' presented a minor side effect of puberty blockers as earth-shattering, destabilizing.
Crank doctors with opinions far from the mainstream are also common across all areas of medicine.
With gender affirming care they're presented as a serious reason to question the status quo, even though the evidence doesn't support them. Not so in other fields.