All things Transgender related

HughFreakingDillon

ecdanc said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult. 

My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up. 

yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)". 

science is a social construct?

You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful. 

And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.  

she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?

I don't think you read the link I sent you, which included a definition of what it means for a transgender person to transition. I presumed you were using "transformation" as a synonym for "transition." If I was wrong there, I guess I partly retract my point?

I don't see any link

I posted it twice upthread. 

The relevant section:

Transition

Altering one's birth sex is not a one-step procedure; it is a complex process that occurs over a long period of time. Transition can include some or all of the following personal, medical, and legal steps: telling one's family, friends, and co-workers; using a different name and new pronouns; dressing differently; changing one's name and/or sex on legal documents; hormone therapy; and possibly (though not always) one or more types of surgery. The exact steps involved in transition vary from person to person. Avoid the phrase "sex change".

where i used the word "transformation", I meant physical surgery. I know transitioning is more than that. I was just saying that the final phase is the most permanent, and should not be performed on a minor. 

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

https://www.quora.com/Is-science-a-social-construction

Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol). 

well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths". 

Good grief, do you want to just go ahead and call me a liar? The person I referenced is the one with the PhD in philosophy, who is not a professor. His discipline at least seemed potentially more appropriate for this question than my own, but you're treating him pretty dismissively too. 

I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora. 

quora is no different than here. 

I dismiss anyone who deems science as a "faith" and "mythology". it's absurd. 

No, but I don't think you should cite most people here as evidence for your claims. It shows that people agree with you; it does not help you make an argument. This is a reasoned discussion, not a poll. 

As for Simon Young: he looks like a charlatan, but his point is not one with which I entirely disagree. Perhaps we can dismiss him and the rest of the Quora crowd and return to the point.

I have asserted that science itself is a social construct: it is one amongst a number of discourses that mediate between what we might call "reality" and our consciousness (these aren't perfect terms, but I hope you get the gist). Therefore science itself is a social construct even if there are moments when it helps us access things that are not social constructs. You disagree with that?

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

I'm not sure how I would respond. honestly, that would be a pretty shocking statement from her, given what I know about her. But I would absolutely support her on whatever journey she chose. but I wouldn't allow any type of transformation until she's at least an adult. 

My wife's cousin has two kids; her youngest is a female who we truly believe will end up trans in some form. She has always refused to wear girl clothes, only plays with "boy" toys, will not wear a bathing suit top, etc. the list goes on. she's been like this since she was old enough to sit up. 

yes, when they were babies, it's obviously difficult to tell if it's a boy or girl unless they are dressed in pink ruffles. So if someone said what a cute little boy, yes, I would say "our girl's name is (x)". 

science is a social construct?

You seem to have answered your own (implicit--I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt) question about how my approach is different than yours. Not "allow[ing]" your daughter to express her gender identity is the absolute antithesis of what we're doing. In this post, you also are just listing gender stereotypes and comparing how children fit them. We are trying to teach P that type of thinking (the initial evaluation vis-a-vis those stereotypes) is neither necessary nor healthful. 

And, while it's not precisely on topic, yes, science is a social construct. Please don't confuse "reality" and "science"--I'm not trying to get into some Kantian/phenomenological debate here.  

she can express it any way she wishes, just not irreversible surgical procedures that could cause irreparable damage. we don't allow kids to express themselves by getting tattoos until they are at least 18. do you think we should allow that?

I don't think you read the link I sent you, which included a definition of what it means for a transgender person to transition. I presumed you were using "transformation" as a synonym for "transition." If I was wrong there, I guess I partly retract my point?

I don't see any link

I posted it twice upthread. 

The relevant section:

Transition

Altering one's birth sex is not a one-step procedure; it is a complex process that occurs over a long period of time. Transition can include some or all of the following personal, medical, and legal steps: telling one's family, friends, and co-workers; using a different name and new pronouns; dressing differently; changing one's name and/or sex on legal documents; hormone therapy; and possibly (though not always) one or more types of surgery. The exact steps involved in transition vary from person to person. Avoid the phrase "sex change".

where i used the word "transformation", I meant physical surgery. I know transitioning is more than that. I was just saying that the final phase is the most permanent, and should not be performed on a minor. 

Fair. I retract that part of my point then. 

HughFreakingDillon

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

https://www.quora.com/Is-science-a-social-construction

Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol). 

well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths". 

Good grief, do you want to just go ahead and call me a liar? The person I referenced is the one with the PhD in philosophy, who is not a professor. His discipline at least seemed potentially more appropriate for this question than my own, but you're treating him pretty dismissively too. 

I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora. 

quora is no different than here. 

I dismiss anyone who deems science as a "faith" and "mythology". it's absurd. 

No, but I don't think you should cite most people here as evidence for your claims. It shows that people agree with you; it does not help you make an argument. This is a reasoned discussion, not a poll. 

As for Simon Young: he looks like a charlatan, but his point is not one with which I entirely disagree. Perhaps we can dismiss him and the rest of the Quora crowd and return to the point.

I have asserted that science itself is a social construct: it is one amongst a number of discourses that mediate between what we might call "reality" and our consciousness (these aren't perfect terms, but I hope you get the gist). Therefore science itself is a social construct even if there are moments when it helps us access things that are not social constructs. You disagree with that?

I wasn't trying to cite anyone. just proposing alternate viewpoints without passing them off as my own. there are many there, I agree mostly with the top one, the one that stated it is both a social construct and an objective view. 

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

I don't see a link. post it again if you wish. 

and how can you be an expert on this subject when you said yourself a page or so back that there is very little scientific study in this area?

You're conflating two threads of this conversation:

I said I'm a least as much of an expert no the social-constructedness of science as the people on Quora. That's a pretty limited claim to my own expertise.

You'll have to refresh my memory: I don't recall saying anything about scientific studies recently. To what was I referring when I said there was "very little scientific study?" 

HughFreakingDillon

ecdanc said:

tish said:

ecdanc said:

tish said:

Is that because surgery was not an option pre-colonization?

No, just recognizing that not all (some, perhaps?) two-spirited indigenous persons identify as transgender persons. From my understanding two-spirited aligns more closely with "gender fluid" because it denies the gender binary on which transgender identity is typically predicated. 

So then, no North American persons identified as transgender in the early 1800, as the language didn't exist? I suppose this thread of thought supports this train of thought: "In the beginning... there was the word".

I actually had a long conversation with a professor of early American literature just yesterday on this topic. As a pretty strict Foucauldian, I was skeptical that transgender identity (as a discursive/subjective possibility) would go back very far. But, she had some very interesting points about the history of gender fluidity, cross dressing, early psychiatric reactions to people "misidentifying", etc. I came away less skeptical, but neither of us was aware of any extensive study in this area. 

As for your last sentence, I'm must confess I don't understand it. 

this one

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

https://www.quora.com/Is-science-a-social-construction

Really, dude? You're talking to someone who's at least as much of an expert as the people posting there (ironically, the one who appears they might be more qualified than me actually agrees with me; lol). 

well, seeing as how I can only go by your own classifications you've give yourself ("expert", "scholar"), i'll have to take your word for it. the only people on there i see agreeing with your position fully is the "author at my desk" and the philosophy professor, who likens science to mythology and compares it to "other faiths". 

Good grief, do you want to just go ahead and call me a liar? The person I referenced is the one with the PhD in philosophy, who is not a professor. His discipline at least seemed potentially more appropriate for this question than my own, but you're treating him pretty dismissively too. 

I'm happy to have this conversation with you, but you can't expect to be very convincing citing Quora. 

quora is no different than here. 

I dismiss anyone who deems science as a "faith" and "mythology". it's absurd. 

No, but I don't think you should cite most people here as evidence for your claims. It shows that people agree with you; it does not help you make an argument. This is a reasoned discussion, not a poll. 

As for Simon Young: he looks like a charlatan, but his point is not one with which I entirely disagree. Perhaps we can dismiss him and the rest of the Quora crowd and return to the point.

I have asserted that science itself is a social construct: it is one amongst a number of discourses that mediate between what we might call "reality" and our consciousness (these aren't perfect terms, but I hope you get the gist). Therefore science itself is a social construct even if there are moments when it helps us access things that are not social constructs. You disagree with that?

I wasn't trying to cite anyone. just proposing alternate viewpoints without passing them off as my own. there are many there, I agree mostly with the top one, the one that stated it is both a social construct and an objective view. 

The top post on Quora is a bunch of empty word salad (he doesn't appear to have much sense what the word "dialectical" means, for one). My most generous reading of it is that it's saying exactly what I'm saying, though. 

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

tish said:

ecdanc said:

tish said:

Is that because surgery was not an option pre-colonization?

No, just recognizing that not all (some, perhaps?) two-spirited indigenous persons identify as transgender persons. From my understanding two-spirited aligns more closely with "gender fluid" because it denies the gender binary on which transgender identity is typically predicated. 

So then, no North American persons identified as transgender in the early 1800, as the language didn't exist? I suppose this thread of thought supports this train of thought: "In the beginning... there was the word".

I actually had a long conversation with a professor of early American literature just yesterday on this topic. As a pretty strict Foucauldian, I was skeptical that transgender identity (as a discursive/subjective possibility) would go back very far. But, she had some very interesting points about the history of gender fluidity, cross dressing, early psychiatric reactions to people "misidentifying", etc. I came away less skeptical, but neither of us was aware of any extensive study in this area. 

As for your last sentence, I'm must confess I don't understand it. 

this one

The word "science" appears nowhere in this post. I was suggesting there was to my knowledge no archaeology/genealogy of discourses around trans identity, a la Foucault's History of Sexuality. 

gimmesometruth27

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

ecdanc

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

HughFreakingDillon

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

Even if the scientific method was rudimentary, flawed, etc., isn't it still scientific?  The wheel may have been invented in the bronze age when they didn't understand 'the scientific method', but that doesn't mean it wasn't employed in some way to perfect the product.  Maybe they just skipped right onto the test from the problem statement.  

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science? 

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

Even if the scientific method was rudimentary, flawed, etc., isn't it still scientific?  The wheel may have been invented in the bronze age when they didn't understand 'the scientific method', but that doesn't mean it wasn't employed in some way to perfect the product.  Maybe they just skipped right onto the test from the problem statement.  

I'm not trying to be mean here, but I'm pretty sure even scientists would be disturbed by the way science is being defended on this thread. At this point, you're basically trying to classify all reasoning as science, which suggests you don't really understand what science is. 

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science? 

Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again.  I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though.  Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.  

ecdanc

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science? 

Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again.  I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though.  Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.  

Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it. 

What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?

HughFreakingDillon

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science? 

you don't need bunson burners to "do science". 

ecdanc

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science? 

you don't need bunson burners to "do science". 

So your answer is "yes." For a defender of science, you have a pretty slipshod (not to mention dismissive) understanding of what it is. 

HughFreakingDillon

1 : knowledge about the natural world that is based on facts learned through experiments and observation. 2 : an area of study that deals with the natural world (as biology or physics)

mrussel1

ecdanc said:

mrussel1 said:

ecdanc said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

ecdanc said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

science is not a social construct. science is testable and provable truths. all knowledge is based on science and the scientific method.

LOL. I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in case you're not:

Are you suggesting there was no knowledge before the scientific method?

And how do you establish these tests and proofs?

there has been science as long as their has been knowledge. observable truths have been around since the dawn of time, they just didn't call it science back then. 

it was "oooh oooh OOOH". 

What you're describing is closer to empiricism than science. Not all observation is science. For instance, a baby sees fire for the first time; they reach out; they get burnt. They have learned something. Did they do science? 

Yes, because they tested and learned. It's rudimentary and incomplete, but the baby used empirical data to decide not to touch the fire again.  I feel like you're mixing philosophy and science here a bit though.  Empiricism is more classically contrasted with rationalism, not science.  

Historically, most science is empirical. Not universally, but most of it. 

What I'm about to say is tongue-in-cheek, but there's a real point in here, as well: are you really comfortable defending science as the definitive source of knowledge if it's something a baby can do?

It was your example, not mine.  The scientific method, if we're speaking the same language, is a simple what... 6/7 step process?  How deeply in each of those steps is related to the complexity of the problem.  That's true for most everything you do in your life.  You have a more analytical, information driven decision tree for buying a car than buying a used Styx record.  And it's mostly because of the risk and size of the investment.  So the baby uses some of the scientific method, as did humans 3500 years ago when inventing the wheel. Still science, in my opinion.