Main Edition
US
FR
May 23, 2024 - 10:00am
This week, South Carolina became the 25th US state to restrict access to hormonal and/or surgical interventions for gender-questioning youth. In a tweet on Tuesday, Governor Henry McMaster said that he signed the “Help Not Harm” bill to protect young people in the state from “irreversible gender transition procedures”.
Trans-rights organisations swiftly condemned the law’s passage, accusing South Carolina Republicans of “rip[ping] away life-affirming and often life-saving care from transgender youth”. An opinion columnist warned that “[t]hey are taking us backwards even as the positive effects of gender-affirming care become more clear”. The Human Rights Campaign claimed that “[e]very credible medical organization – representing over 1.3 million doctors in the United States – calls for age-appropriate gender-affirming care for transgender and non-binary people”, and denied that any “medical interventions with permanent consequences happen until a transgender person is old enough to give truly informed consent”.
Stop me if you’ve heard this story before. By now, the same scenario has played out dozens of times. Half of US states now restrict transition-related procedures for youth. At the same time, a growing number of states have taken steps to ensure unimpeded access to the same set of interventions. As red states increasingly require parental notification when a student comes out as transgender at school, blue states head in the opposite direction.
Conflicts spill over every week: the Biden administration seeks to redefine sex under Title IX — and 26 states sue the Department of Education. A lawsuit brought by a young detransitioner moves forward. In New York, elected officials chastised parents for raising concerns about fairness in girls’ sports, labelling the parents’ call for a review of sports policies as “hateful, discriminatory and actively harmful”. One state assemblyman accused parents of “creat[ing] a conversation that is not needed” — even as male athletes knock female competitors off the podium.
But the conversation isn’t getting any smarter and the US is increasingly out of step with international developments concerning gender identity in healthcare, education, and sports.
The release of the final report of the Cass Review sent shockwaves through UK politics last month, with policymakers across party lines expressing grave concerns about its findings. But — in the latest iteration of important information getting lost over the pond — the report has had little to no effect on the heated debate over transgender issues in the US. So, even as the UK starts to reckon with the fallout of a medical scandal, the US splits furiously down the middle.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeWhat can I say, liberals love gender. It seems the last true vestige of Marxist philosophy.
Net Zero, in contrast, is too amorphous a policy programme and makes folk suspect that Democrat corporatism mirrors the corporatism of the Chinese Communist Party. No doubt the two only really differ on gender, by way of completing the circle.
Das Kapital is full of stuff about ‘trans people’
Very good.
I think this is an example of “bundling”. This goes as follows: I am opposed to a b c and d; therefore a b c and d must be linked to each other in some way in the real world. Conspiratorial thinking is the attempt to rationalise this in some way, however implausible.
It is to mistake a psychological fact (I don’t like a b c and d) for an empirical fact (a b c and d are connected in the real world).
eg trans, net zero, Marxism
Yes I agree. Or some people just use the term Marxism out of laziness, as a catch-all way of referring to movements which seem to priorititize Equality over exisiting rights & freedoms.
I’d say the roots of trans activism are a kind of hypertrophied version of liberalism, and the progressive impulse to move on to the next Big Cause. They very explicitly depend on the rhetoric of liberalism, and individual rights, but there are some genetic similarities with Marxism.
Marxism and Liberalism are both Enlightenment movements with comparable strands of thought – e.g. an emphasis on blank slatism.
“It seems the last true vestige of Marxist philosophy.” <– A stupidity of yours which you can defend in no way.
Why do use greater than symbols and hyphens? It is grammatically (strange ?).
Talia read the Cass Report. Read the WPATH Flies. Broaden your mind.
I did read it. In particular, I recall her inclusion/exclusion criteria. They were designed to permit her to claim there was insufficient evidence — by ignoring perfectly good evidence.
No more, no less, and no other.
On top of which, she has herself repudiated since what your sort of “gender critical ” liar claim she said in her report.
Your point about “ignoring perfectly good evidence” is based on unsophisticated ideas. Leor Sapir thoroughly refuted this criticism of the Cass Report in City Journal a couple of weeks ago. It’s clear that your point crumbles into nothing when scrutinized properly.
See https://www.city-journal.org/article/what-does-quality-of-evidence-mean
“Leor Sapir thoroughly refuted this criticism of the Cass Report in City Journal a couple of weeks ago.’ <– No he did not, he handwaved it away.
“Turban claimed that the report found “moderate” quality evidence for “gender-affirming care,” and that, contrary to its reception, the review’s findings did not lend support to restrictions on puberty blockers and other medical interventions for pediatric gender dysphoria.” <– That is what Cass told The Kite Trust, that puberty blockers were safe and should be readily available to gender dysphoric youth.
You’ve decontextualised a quote without comprehending his explanation, then added something you’ve made up. That’s not surprising. I wasn’t expecting an epiphany from you, or good faith. I put the link there for others who want informed counterarguments to extremist positions like yours.
No, I’ve made nothing up. And Sapir’s “explanation” is only handwaving, he ignores completely that almost all medicine is based n evidence which is not “high quality”.
thekitetrust.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2024/04/Cass-Review-Mythbusting-Q-and-A.pdf
As I say, I put the Leor Sapir link there for benefit of others. Your assertions are incorrect, and you’ve linked to a transgender activist website that is very far from neutral.
I’ve linked to a factual document quoting what Cass told them. Cass has denied nothing in it. Sapir is a deceitful activist who says BS you do like, no more, no less, no other to him.
Support trans youth – support youth sterilization.
Moron, there is nothing of “youth sterilization” necessarily to supporting transgender youth — there is no proposed mandatory course of action involved which results in such. When transgender people choose such, they regret the necessity, not what is chosen. When the less than 1% of people for whom medical transition is offered do so and regret it altogether as having been a false positive — it is that, a false positive. You have proposed no way in which to eliminate the false positives which do not also prevent the successful treatment of the true positive — this means you intend to force 99 or more boys and girls to respectively have breasts and periods, and, to have beards and deep voices.
It’s called the Trolley Car Problem, and you flunk it. The exact same damage you claim to avoid for one, you prose to inflict on 99 or more.
There may be no way back for you, but that doesn’t mean subjecting children to the same torture.
You are the only one wanting here to torture any children.
You want to force some boys to have breasts and periods, and you want to force some girls to have beards and deep voices. You are the child torturer.
It’s called the trolley car problem for a reason. It’s a problem, not a test. You can’t flunk it. It distinguishes different forms of moral thinking, and different moral criteria based on action and inaction.
If you are making appeal to any moral system at all, it is to a crude form of utilitarianism. And it’s a similar position to that of people who say: it doesn’t matter if a few innocent people get locked up, so long as more criminals get put in jail.
Good you lay your cards on the table though. Better than those who just give downvotes without explanation.
It is equally a problem and a test, and when encountered in the real world as is true here, it can be flunked.
“it is to a crude form of utilitarianism.” <– Demonstrate with more perfect assurance then, that better can be done. Show your work, put your cards on the table.
“And it’s a similar position to that of people who say: it doesn’t matter if a few innocent people get locked up, so long as more criminals get put in jail.” <– That’s only everyone who thinks there should be any enforcement of any laws at all. You lack the nuance to understand the implications of the fact perfection is never possible — it not a matter of “more”, but of “any”. Some will in fact be innocent.
The way you know that progressives have detached from reality, is that they support Hamas at the same time as they zealously believe gender crap. Normally, you can follow the logic of even quite insane people. But at this point, progressivism confounds me.
Social conservatives are progressives detached from reality. They not less than Leftists have their design for society — the SoCons design has no “trans” in it — so they are passing laws and policies designed to eliminate transgender people.
It won’t work, being transgender is a constant in human biology. What we may discover in the more endarkening parts of the world is how many people you hurt with your stupidity.
There you go again; calling people stupid who disagree with your ideology.
No moron, those who deny facts on the basis of their emotions. There is no ideology to it.
Stick your dummy in your mouth, climb back into your pram!
Have a fact justifying your claims.
I know for you it’s going to be impossible.
How will transgenderism be eliminated if it is a constant in human biology? That would be like trying to eliminate male and female as mere social constructs.
I can see intersex variations being a constant in human biology. But being transgender is slightly different than being born with non-standard chromosomes and/or sex characteristics.
Playing the protection of children as an assault on adults is a political ploy.
I used to be a progressive, but they left me. I still believe in fighting for decent wages and universal healthcare, but they have gone crazy with their obsession with gender, trigger warnings and canceling any voices that are not progressive. Hamas was the final nail in the coffin.
I should mention that the majority of average Democrats do not support boys/men in women’s sports. Nor do they want trans identified men in locker rooms or any female spaces. Only 8 percent of Democrats are progressives.
It’s bizarre how the extreme left has managed to capture the Democratic party. What’s more baffling is why Biden seems determined to pander to them. He’s been a finger in the wind politician his entire career so I can’t imagine he has a strong sentiment one way or the other that couldn’t be altered by political calculus. Further, I can’t imagine how anyone thinks this issue will help in the general election. For such a political creature as Biden to step out on a branch that thin is just inexplicable to me. He’s also failed to use his economic nationalist policies to appeal to working class voters and undermine some of Trump’s populist appeal. I have to wonder if there are any competent political strategists left on the Democratic side. From a completely non-partisan perspective, I think the Democrats are their own worst enemy at this point. Why they can’t let go of the nonsense is beyond me.
A possibility is that the committee that handles and directs Biden is itself split on a number of issues, and this accounts for the positions he espouses.
I feel exactly the same.
I was in your shoes 15 years ago! These people moved into a parallel universe that denies science and logic; I have no desire to follow, and abandoned what is really a regressive ideology a long time ago. Welcome to rationality and sanity. Delighted to have you!
Zealotry and logic coexist like two angry wolverines in a five foot square cage. These things do not go together because when they attempt to coexist, one of the two has to kill the other. Trying to understand the logic of zealots is like trying to define the sound of purple.
Trans activists will resist any movement to a debate based on evidence and reason because if that happens they have lost.
I actually think that’s unfair. Some trans activists are betting their movement on there actually being detectable differences in the brains of trans and “cis” people. That means they are laying themselves open to refuting evidence.
In this they are very different from the gender fluid crowd who take their lead from Judith Butler, and feminist metaphysics. This position is totally non-scientific as it is, in principle, not capable of being refuted.
Lobbocks. They are all weird anti-human gnostic maniacs and very mentally unhinged
There is no such fv-king movement, David, any more than the Civil Rights movement was that.
“That means they are laying themselves open to refuting evidence.” <– Except there is none David, all the evidence is on the other side of things.
“In this they … of being refuted.” <– Why are you pretending you have any excuse to claim being gender fluid has no or could have no biological basis?
Read (or reread) Popper. You’ll then realise that my comment is relatively sympathetic to your cause. But you must learn to slow down and think!
I have already thought. No fact involved has changed.
Popper is as oversold in this as is the fear Brownian motion might make water in a glass leap from it.
Unfortunately, when it comes to activists of all sorts, thinking is optional at best.
Hello Talia. Still defending the indefensible I see. I came across a comment on Facebook from someone else claiming that gender theory is based on biology. This is utter nonsense and the more activists claim this, the more ‘shouty’ they get (hence the insults, swearing, etc.) and the more ridiculous they look. I’d stop doing it if I were you.
“I came across a comment on Facebook from someone else claiming that gender theory is based on biology.” <– It exclusively is. That is why the first 9 or so links here are only to measured biology.
https://taliaperkinssspace.quora.com/People-are-born-transgender-they-are-not-mentally-ill-it-is-no-paraphilia-it-is-a-physical-birth-defect-no-more-a-men
Half the country opposes butchering kids. Let’s not boil that down to simple red/blue.
Trans activists and US medical organisations insist there’s nothing the country’s parents, doctors, and policymakers need to learn from Hilary Cass.
Of course, they do. They’re activists. They don’t give a damn about who is affected; their allegiance is to the grift.
“Half the country opposes butchering kids.” <– No moron, none of that has anything to do with it. There is no butchery of kids involved — that claim is only an emotional hook for your propaganda where you advocate for boys being forced to have breasts and periods and girls being forced to have beards and deep voices.
You are a pro-child abuse activist.
Cutting off body parts that function as intended is butchery. Were I to ask a doctor to remove my arm for no beneficial reason, he would rightly think I was unstable.
I’m a pro let kids grow up without ghouls like you inflicting torture on them. You can try and flip biology on its head all you like with the “girls forced to have beards” idiocy, but people with beards are not girls no matter how loudly you scream it.
“Cutting off body parts that function as intended is butchery” <– It is not possible for a p***s on a woman to be functioning as intended. You want to force on some women exactly such torture.
“but people with beards are not girls no matter how loudly you scream it.” <– It only takes one example to prove you wrong, so, here are many:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&sca_esv=453cf80c9d34ac6b&sca_upv=1&sxsrf=ADLYWIIgeVe9dyCujc6oHDZ1-5hfDEWYaw:1716481552507&q=women+with+beards&uds=ADvngMjwX4dvqjExbCg9zqvMuh5VOEMFcxfyzqQzZHSikQhG66XLGlWms-1sQpJsAPr-nKhA8ExeFDw8aMhcUOLBONFhbD1gezAmoZbiwpILmTt9NAE43gOL9Hga_aw8mnDz4T_0EsDXULS8cL6PN4eClzLpQ75tayGP_H-wxk4L5RET77jW7Vc2jf7GLKJ5ljXXslttk1i80OkdyMEYTAPQTAeNmrfhAqypW5MSjXeqzFdLChn35eRh_LuoGANuK3y2YEH4yGL-Q9Qki-6snuvqyApyHCPyMj87h3Rs_tbP5GqmGA_pYhkJKQcmEgSKZkg4yReWWu-X05mIKza0aHS-LLF67cs6cA&udm=2&prmd=ivsnmbt&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwicms2JmKSGAxUBrYkEHVW7D_sQtKgLegQIJRAB&biw=1920&bih=899&dpr=1
Biology is not what you think of as being “perfect”. And those you think imperfect do not deserve your abuse.
Or the torture you want for them.
Sadly, your example is not even farfetched because reductio ad absurdum is no longer possible in these mad times. Just this year, in Quebec, a surgeon performed the elective amputation of two healthy fingers of a healthy young man on grounds of “body integrity dysmorphia”.
Talia, you really need to stop with the accusations of abuse. Not only is it a pretty serious accusation to throw at random people who disagree with you, it does nothing to strengthen your arguments. I also rather suspect that it’s the reason why your comments are being removed.
“Talia, you really need to stop with the accusations of abuse.” <– No, because they are perfectly well founded.
That withholding medical transition from youth is abuse of them is the whole of my “argument” — it is reality itself. The gender critical have no excuse to claim the contrary.
“I also rather suspect that it’s the reason why your comments are being removed.” <– Why should I respect in any way, what lies the Herd loves and will protect from reality?
Your comments are disagreed with, profoundly, on this forum, but by and large your view should be freely expressed and Unherd (or its algorithm) shouldn’t be removing them
There’s therefore no reason to abuse people. I’m sure, in time, you’ll come to realise how counterproductive it is. You have the right to free speech – don’t abuse that right.
I abuse none here — I describe them accurately.
I think you have it backwards. You say we would force boys to have periods and breasts and girls forced to have beards and deep voices. No, that’s what WE want to prevent. Boys don’t have periods and breasts and girls don’t have beards.
“Boys don’t have periods and breasts and girls don’t have beards.” <– A falsehood, if claimed universally.
And that is what you want to mandate, because that is what prohibiting gender affirming care will do.
Some girls with conditions like PCOS could grow beards. It’s very unusual. Boys with periods, I’m afraid not. That requires a fully functional suite of female organs. Maybe that boy thinks he’s a girl, and we can give him all the clothes, and hormones, and affirming pronouns to help extend that fantasy, but if hundreds of years from now archeologists were to dig up his bones, they’d know the truth.
“Boys don’t have periods and breasts and girls don’t have beards.”
Thank you for admitting what you now claim is rare was what you once lied to say was impossible.
Further facts, about 10% of the time archeologists can not discern the sex of a person from the skeleton, and now that DNA can be seen, they can see with 149 out of 150 odds accuracy they were wrong in guessing quite frequently. Of course, the gender is in the brain is never seen in a skeleton.
I think it’s these two terms that should really give us pause. The process is irreversible, and the “transition” is in appearance not reality. We can make you appear more like the opposite sex, but we cannot actually transform you into it.
If we could wave a magic wand which changed someone’s sex, then wave it again and change it back, well why not. But we can’t. At best, we are making the best of a bad job. At worst we may be wrecking peoples lives permanently.
At the very least this says to me – research it to death, objectively, and proceed slowly and with great caution. Because for the individuals concerned there is no rewind button.
Your bothsidesism is grotesque. Were it 1930’s Germany, you’d be telling Jews and Nazis they both have good points and should talk it out. And at that, below you lean towards the Nazi’s having the better points. The bigots did not then and do not now.
The primacy and secondary sex characteristics of a transgender person can be changed by medical transition, exactly how and with what assurance is said and in writing.
“If we could … peoples lives permanently.” <– Because only those who are transgender would benefit, that is why not. With the <1% regret rate not being zero, there are and will be some lives permanently wrecked — less than 1 in 100 who are involved. Until and unless you can show some way that <1% can be avoided while still helping the 99 avoid the identical fate, you have nothing productive to say about it.
“At best, we are making the best of a bad job.” <– You venture to claim what is not only utterly objectively false, but which could only be your subjective opinion which you have no right to inflict on anyone else in any way.
“At the very least this says to me – research it to death, objectively, and proceed slowly and with great caution. Because for the individuals concerned there is no rewind button.” <– Ahem. That is bafflegarb. Word salad. It is also a lie — it presumes the matter has not been researched to death and objectively — and instead it has. It is already true that gender affirming care proceeds slowly and with great caution — that is in no small part why the regret rate is less than 1%. There is no rewind button for anyone, and here you seem only to be concerned about rewind button not being available for those who regret — you show no signs of even counting those who do not.
They count too, fully human, every one of them.
And for all that, weeks after her report, Cass told The Kite Trust puberty blockers were safe and should be given far more early — early enough to do the good they can.
https://www.erininthemorning.com/p/dr-cass-backpedals-from-review-hrt
It seems the hack propped up to be a figleaf for your bothsidesism, is too much on bothsides herself for your comfort.
Your bothsidesism is grotesque. Were it 1930’s Germany, you’d be telling Jews and Nazis they both have good points and should talk it out. And at that, below you lean towards the Nazi’s having the better points. The bigots did not then and do not now.
The primacy and secondary sex characteristics of a transgender person can be changed by medical transition, exactly how and with what assurance is said and in writing.
“If we could … peoples lives permanently.” <– Because only those who are transgender would benefit, that is why not. With the <1% regret rate not being zero, there are and will be some lives permanently wrecked — less than 1 in 100 who are involved. Until and unless you can show some way that <1% can be avoided while still helping the 99 avoid the identical fate, you have nothing productive to say about it.
“At best, we are making the best of a bad job.” <– You venture to claim what is not only utterly objectively false, but which could only be your subjective opinion which you have no right to inflict on anyone else in any way.
“At the very least this says to me – research it to death, objectively, and proceed slowly and with great caution. Because for the individuals concerned there is no rewind button.” <– Ahem. That is bafflegarb. Word salad. It is also a lie — it presumes the matter has not been researched to death and objectively — and instead it has. It is already true that gender affirming care proceeds slowly and with great caution — that is in no small part why the regret rate is less than 1%. There is no rewind button for anyone, and here you seem only to be concerned about rewind button not being available for those who regret — you show no signs of even counting those who do not.
They count too, fully human, every one of them.
And for all that, weeks after her report, Cass told The Kite Trust puberty blockers were safe and should be given far more early — early enough to do the good they can.
link redacted so maybe the Herd will permit the comment to be published.
It seems the hack propped up to be a figleaf for your bothsidesism, is too much on both sides herself for your comfort.
1.3 million doctors making a fortune from unstable youngsters and their weak- minded parents.
Well yes, perhaps. But then should we not trust anyone who is providing us with goods and services – and has a profit motive to do so? If we can’t trust others on something like this, how can we trust them on anything? But without that trust our societies would collapse.
“Well yes, perhaps.” <– More mealy mouthed bothsideism. No, not perhaps, only no. There is no trace of any evidence for what they claim being anything that could possibly be changed for the better by any of the laws and policies Social Conservatives approve.
Ha ha – you do make me laugh Talia. You’re not alone on here, but you thrive on total agreement or total disagreement. The latter because you can then feel good about getting angry.
Nuance has you spooked. You’d rather alienate people from your cause so you can hate them, than have partial sympathy or agnosticism which you don’t know what to do with.
Lots of your opponents behave in exactly the same way.
“but you thrive on total agreement or total disagreemen” <– You must be quite the excessively craven approval seeking sort to think that. I thrive on facts — there are none supporting the “gender critical”.
Nuance has nothing to do with it.
“You’d rather alienate people from your cause” <– The dedicated bigots in the trenches are irretrievable. I am not writing for them I am writing at them.
You just proved my point.
No, I did not. You made a baseless assertion which is contrary to measured reality.
You have demonstrated no basis for there being any nuance to it.
There is no more room for nuance about it than there is about phlogiston explaining fire.
null
The “facts” are certainly on the gender critical side. Gender wang is just that — wang — ideological mumbo-jumbo that its adherents vainly think sounds cool. That’s because you’re a progressive. Progressives have a hallucinatory relationship with reality — including making up fake facts on the justification that moral lies (e.g. the fake gender suicide “facts”) are necessary to fight “f*scism” or whatever over-used anger-word you want to use.
“The “facts” are certainly on the gender critical side.” <– None whatsoever are. That is why you never mention anything but falsehoods as support for you.
“That’s because you’re a progressive.” <– No I am not. To be progressive is to have a plan for improving society in your view which you intend to enforce without regard for other’s rights. You are a progressive here.
“including making up fake facts on the justification that moral lies (e.g. the fake gender suicide “facts”) are necessary to fight “f*scism” or whatever over-used anger-word you want to use.” <– Every bit of it confabulations on your part — you are making it all up without any consistency whatsoever. You should check with your fellow conspirators so you don’t undermine their fake arguments with your fake arguments.
Loss of nuance is an indicator of totalitarian thinking. These are trying times.
There is no nuance involved. It can not be “lost” from where it never was.
You’re not kidding. Sometimes it looks like the only ones who want to engage in debate are those incapable of it. They just like slanging matches.
There is no possibility of actually debating those who do not care what is measurably real. The gender critical do not care what is real, they universally prefer their delusions about the matter to physical reality.
You prefer to pretend reality is not yet or cannot be measured about the matter. You are also delusional.
He doesn’t come across as delusional. You do. He just sounds like a kind of stodgy, moderately conservative older person. You sound heated, manic and angry, with politically extreme views. You’re a type.
Only to poeple as disconnected from reality as you are. You don’t know or care what is real about it.
Science and medicine aren’t defined by consensus or appeals to authority. If they were defined by consensus/authority then the scientific revolution would never have happened
They shouldn’t be. But frequently they are.
“They shouldn’t be.’ <– Nevertheless, you are fine with that result, because — baseless appeals to “nuance”.
An excuse for doing anything but standing up for those excuselessly abused and reviled.
The authorities are in this question pointedly ignoring the evidence. There is no evidence for the gender critical opinions, only that overwhelmingly against.
I don’t think you understand any of the words you are using
I don’t think you believe that at all — you are only writing lies which comfort you.
Quite recently, an AI programme succeeded in distinguishing between male and female brains with 90% certainty. This shows that there are average differences between men’s and women’s brains. These differences may not be large, and how significant they are needs further exploration – but they are there.
If an AI could learn to distinguish trans brains consistently, prior to treatment, this might be a real step forward. It might also allow us to distinguish people who are “genuinely” trans from those who have other issues, or who might be victims of social contagion.
That doesn’t, in itself, answer the question of what our response should be – but it would give more clarity. And it might take some of the heat and nastiness out of the debate.
What is a ‘trans brain’? A man who comes within the ambit of average female differences might still just see himself as a man and be happy with that. The brain is complex so what specific differences are we talking about? – if a female brain exists, & it’s possible for some biological males to come under this definition, then does that automatically translate into outward effeminate behaviour, or are there also big enviromental factors involved in forming those patterns of behaviour. Difficult to define.
Lots we simply don’t know.
But if an AI could consistently identify the brains of those, in a large random group of people, who identified as the opposite sex, it would be onto something. No definition would be needed – the distinction would be established empirically not conceptually.
You seem to think that AI is the best way to find a difference in male and female’s brains. As it is now, AI is riddled with errors.
its a task that lends itself pretty well to AI. Are you saying it found differences that weren’t actually there? It’s likely that as both AI and scanning techniques become more sophisticated, more subtle differences will become detectable.
If the AI being used had been “riddled with errors” it would have been less able to link brain organisation to sex, not more. It was effectively being given a blind test. Match brains to sex. Both a lack of differentiation between the brains, and errors in the AI, would have led it to fail to find them (or be less successful).
The interesting thing will be working out what the differences mean, for example in terms of personality and behaviour. Will they reinforce traditional ideas, or call them into question?
https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2024/02/men-women-brain-organization-patterns.html
“Difficult to define.” <– Apparently not, as the current procedures correctly suggest or contraindicate medical transition 44999 times out of 45000 as a minimum level of accuracy. Only 1 in about 450 seek transition — and to those who do not seek it, it is not proposed. Of the one in 450 who seek it, it is proposed with accuracy no less than 99% of the time.
Where are those numbers coming from and how is ‘accuracy’ defined in any of those contexts?
In order to define success of medical transition you would have to track down a large number of such people, post-op, or during and after treatment, & keep in contact with them over the years or decades, which as far as I’m aware hasn’t yet been done on a large scale
“In order to define success of medical transition you would have to track down a large number of such people, post-op, or during and after treatment, & keep in contact with them over the years or decades, which as far as I’m aware hasn’t yet been done on a large scale” <– Imbecile, that was one of the large studies Cass ignored because it collated many smaller studies.
Almost 8000 people, with a regret rate under 1%.
“an AI programme succeeded in distinguishing between male and female brains with 90% certainty” <– With what criteria was it judging matters? 90% would be consistent with it looking at size alone.
The current criteria is already 99.9978% accurate. Any AI would have to beat that.
In the meantime, why not proceed as evidence already indicates is best — with the current standards of gender affirming care?
The differences are in brain organisation.
I know that. I also know that in this debate, that is not relevant when any means other than the current diagnostic protocols need to show greater accuracy than the current protocols before it is discussed in any way, if the new criteria should replace those now current.
https://americanmind.org/salvo/genital-mutilation-for-the-masses/
It’s unfortunate that US gender medicine practitioners are unwilling to engage with Cass report and other European developments in the subject. However, we USAmericans are a litigious people so as soon as the trial lawyers come up with a theory for a cause of action and recruit enough plaintiffs to put together a class action perhaps the US might catch up with the rest of the world. Fighting capitalism with capitalism.
A fair few Americans couldn’t identify the UK on a map, let alone care about the scientific findings of some doctor there. They are too busy fighting each other to bother with much else, which, if you know much about American history prior to WWII, you’ll know is basically the default state of the USA. I often find myself weighing how much Americans actually know or care about the issue vs. how much they just want to fight about something. The fact that the red states aren’t waving the Cass report in the faces of every ‘gender affirming’ politician from sea to shining sea suggests the latter. They fight more about the Gaza protests on university campuses than they actually care about Israel or Gaza. It’s a reflection of how even as a global superpower, Americans remain internally focused to an extreme degree. America as a global hegemon and the driving force of globalism has to be God’s idea of joke. I have to admit it is kinda funny.