Herculean effort by @Sidney, and apt that he accomplished it on the same day of Liverpool’s latest European miracle. I have work to do and will expand later, but will just leave this here for now.
Psychology isn’t science.
One deeply flawed study from 1979 that came up with results the man who commissioned it wanted isn’t science.
Check and mate.
By the way @bandage, @sidney snuck some vile and defamatory remarks into the middle of all that text, I’d advise you to peruse it very carefully.
1 Like
This Dr. John Money?
“If I were to see the case of a boy of 10 or 12 who’s intensely erotically attracted to a man in his twenties or thirties, and the relationship is genuinely totally mutual(
), I would not call it pathological in any way”.
Money is also infamous for performing surgery on a young boy who had his penis damaged during circumcision, theorizing that cutting off his cock and balls would turn him into a woman, and he could live happily as a woman rather than a man with a damaged penis. The poor lad later committed suicide.
http://www.goodtherapy.org/famous-psychologists/john-money.html
They should surely have listened to this lad alright.
3 Likes
A for effort, but unfortunately none of the studies you quoted are scientific. A survey is not science. A scientific approach would be studying people who had this surgery for years or decades afterwards, how many were still clinically depressed, how many had committed suicide, that type of thing.
Meyer was the head of the Sexual Behaviors clinic at Johns Hopkins. You are suggesting he would have come up with fraudulent data to support McHugh’s efforts to shut down the sex change facility there, a very serious charge indeed (with no evidence to back it up). The value of the Meyer study is it is long term as Johns Hopkins had been doing the surgeries since the early 60s. The program was started by Dr. John Money, the champion of “harmless” pedophiles, who just were just in mutual love with their child victims, and not at all sadistic. Most of the studies that are favorable that you posted above were done after a year, and basically asked people if you look in the mirror do you like what you see. They are no more scientific than my going out and interviewing a bunch of lads coming out of the pub on a Saturday night. Not to mention the fact that controls used in every other field of study were not followed, and more than half the study group couldn’t be located (I wonder why?).
Let’s start at the beginning, Psychology is not science. Psychology does not meet any of the requirements to be considered scientific; defined terminology, quantifiable, controlled experimental conditions, reproducible and testability. It is an insulting attempt to redefine science. Empirical Psychology can yield interesting information, but who knows how reliable it is. John goes to the therapist and claims there’s a unicorn in his bed every morning when he wakes up. Next visit the unicorn has gone. Which John do you believe? This is a brilliant article on the subject:
In attempts to duplicate the claimed results of 100 psychological studies, of the original 97% that claimed statistically significant results, only a third of them did in the replicate study. That’s the value of the English metastudy I posted earlier that exposed most of the published studies on sex change surgery as garbage, only publishing favorable data, ignoring the guidelines for controlled studies, making up the rules as they go along. All of science and medicine suffers from publication bias, but Psychology are the masters at it.
Ask yourself this question, if sex change surgery is so successful, why are their many surgeons that now specialize in reversal surgery? The truth would be appear to be that surgery produces a short term cosmetic benefit, but does nothing to resolve the underlying condition (which is psychological not physical). As for a scientific basis, your prior posted article by the student that attacked McHugh included a claim regarding a genetic basis for transgender. Well, the science refutes that claim, and this time it is actually science.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23324476
No genetic connection found, so the jury is still out. All of the evidence suggest the condition is one of the human mind. Chopping off genitals is no more likely to be successful than slicing brains in half to resolve depression.
I’m not saying McHugh is right on this question. I’m saying the claims of successful outcomes to surgery are very suspect, short term based anecdotal subjective evidence, and using unscientific methodology. Personally I don’t care how many lads decide to cut off their cock and balls, but I’d hate to be the lad that regretted it.
4 Likes
You have gotten to the crux of the debate. One of the summaries of studies @Sidney posted stated “the results of this study did not evidence any influence by certain aspects of the personality, such as extraversion and neuroticism, on the QoL for reassigned subjects”.
The danger here is that someone without a grounding in science, and more specifically in the design and analysis of statistical experiments, might fall into the modus tollens trap and think “Great! Absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”
Studies with many sub-groups, as I’d imagine there are in human psychology studies, are complex structures. A detailed analysis of variance would be required, and I’d still be worried you’d end up with an omitted variable bias (ie. a Simpson’s Paradox):
- an explained outcome;
- an observed explanatory; and most importantly
- a ‘lurking’ explanatory
I would think that in order to have a properly constructed study that would satisfy the scientific approach @anon7035031 refers to, you’d need a multi-factor study with a large number of subject-type / treatment-group combinations. This, in turn, would result in your study requiring a fuck load of pairwise comparisons. It’s hard to tell from summaries whether or not the references @Sidney posted met this, but if you’re looking at study groups of around 30 people (which the one I quoted above had) that would be a resounding no. Even studies involving hundreds of people could be deemed as “inconclusive” at best.
I’d hate to be the one that (literally and figuratively) put my cock on the block based on this type of “science”.
1 Like
Lads, seriously… All you are doing is pandering to the mongs like HBV and co. All you’ve both shown is that we still don’t know enough about the issue and it’s in times like this we need to turn to wiser men, and women, than ourselves.
https://youtu.be/sFBOQzSk14c
2 Likes
Winner rating
Who are you talking to?
Agree rating.
To be fair, @anon7035031 has been saying we don’t know enough to be extreme in one camp or the other.
The evidence firmly suggests the causes of gender dysphoria are biological.
Unfortunately for you, your whole case rests pretty much entirely on what Professor McHugh says.
If you have a problem with what McHugh says, then you have a big problem in terms of everything you have written on this thread, as does @ironmoth.
You want to disregard all of the evidence that suggests:
i) gender dysphoria is biological
ii) that it is not a mental illness
iii) the total lack of studies that back up McHugh, on whose ideology your entire case depends
iv) the overwhelming evidence that says gender reassignment surgery overwhelmingly benefits those undergo it
Given those facts and your refusal to accept any of them, there isn’t much anybody can do to change your belief (and that’s all it is) that gender dysphoria is a mental condition.
I have been asking the know it alls for a week what were Frank Maloneys medical symptoms when he was diagnosed with the ‘transgender’ but either they don’t know or they are keeping it for themselves.
My guess is you can’t prove anyone has this ‘transgender’ thing and you have to take their word for it. There is no other medical condition I’d wager where you can get a body part cut off and given drug s to help you grow other body parts based on the patients word alone.
At least the mouse is admitting now that he is arguing passionately on something he doesn’t know enough about
You posted up a video which is a load of nonsense and relies on three individual cases and what McHugh said, to make a generalisation about the whole subject of transgenderism.
I posted up a link to 71 peer-reviewed studies that back my case up.
You’re now admitting that there is no evidence that can make you change your mind.
This is again highly ironic, given your reference to some posters having “a chronic inability to admit defeat”.
Those posters, clearly, are you and @anon7035031.
Show me where I have argued passionately, kid? I said from the start that not enough was known to be calling transgender people mentally ill… and that has been borne out here over the last week. I’ve never argued for or against but that these people should be shown respect. You’re insecurity levels, however, have been through the roof once again. I’d say you’d a fair rough upbringing had you? Did your father beat you? Or sexually abuse you? Your obsession with sexuality, and particularly your horror towards anything that isn’t hetero-sexual is abnormal. You must have had a right bad childhood altogether, you poor cunt.
@ironmoth - do you still think all transgendered persons are mentally ill?
I’m undecided. I might wait until the WHO’s International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems is revised to remove ‘Gender Identity Disorder’ (ie. gender dysphoria) from its list of mental and behavioural disorders. I’d hate to be wrong on the internet.
this isent a hetro/homo sexual debate, its nothing to do with sexual orientation. why cant you distinguish that?
unless you are stereotyping all ‘transgenders’ as homos?
I never inferred any of that - Can you read? The topic here is your fear and insecurity when it comes to non hetro sexual issues… Were you sexually abused as a child?
this isent a non hetro sexual issue, it has nothing to do with sexual orientation kid. bizarre you cant get your head around that.
I can get my head around it alright… can you tho?
You are accusing others of being fixed in their viewpoints, and then you make four statements that are fixed in their viewpoint.
i) No, the causes of gender dysphoria are unclear. The claim that gender identity is established before birth is speculation, the “evidence” that there are genetic markers for the condition has been debunked by actual science. There is still strong supporting evidence that it is a mental condition, some of those who undergo surgery to change gender regret their decision and have surgery to revert back. That would suggest to me that gender identity can be fluid and change over time.
ii) I would go along with this, based on the cause being unclear.
iii) and iv) I don’t believe anything based on ideology, I believe it based on evidence or lack or evidence. I agree all the short term studies, most done within a year of the surgery, indicate patient satisfaction with the cosmetic outcome. The studies that go out further in time, like the Meyer and Swedish studies, suggest the benefits fade over time and patients still have a much higher rate of depression and suicide than the general public. More long term studies need to be done.
The problem I have with McHugh is he has a strong apparently unmovable opinion, based on one study. I think the appropriate position is we don’t know what causes gender dysphoria, and should continue to study it in the hope of coming up with treatment that doesn’t involve drastic surgical intervention.
1 Like