LGB Alliance to plan helpline with Lottery funding

Here is just another reason why LGB Alliance and their dedicated LGB helpline is needed. To counter content such as this produced by content producer Dr Michael Ann DeVito.

www.instagram.com/tv/CeP2jo2KZyr/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=

Because the community is supposedly so inclusive, loving, happy and tolerant.

What does that article mean by random data? Two uncorrelated normally distributed random samples where one is labelled “actual skill” and the other is labelled “estimated skill”? Or they made the estimate some function of actual skill? If the latter then how is it random?

sorry I know I could probably look this up myself but I just don’t want to go down the rabbit hole and that article promised to explain it!

experts and novices underestimate and overestimate their skills with the same frequency. “It’s just that experts do that over a narrower range,”

If experts are more precise at predicting their own competence that’s sort of Dunning-Kruger adjacent, isn’t it? In that it explains all the people who bring the words “Dunning-Kruger effect” to mind. Though I guess this interpretation of the data is unsurprising, and that paper would never have gone viral.

I think also in the real world, there’s a cutoff effect. An incompetent person who underestimates their own competence is probably going to avoid the activity they believe they’re even worse at than they are, or at least not draw attention to themselves . So most of us are only noticing the over-optimistic variety of incompetent.

Yes. An artefact of experimental design? Maybe so. That's an ever-present danger in experimental psychology, anyway.

But still, the general artefactual status of a cap need not affect trying it on a particular head. Does this one fit? It looks roughly the right size.

My Canute-style contribution: The Dunning-Kruger Effect Is Probably Not Real
The darling of those who wish to explain why incompetent people don’t know they’re unskilled, the Dunning-Kruger effect may actually just be a data artefact.

www.mcgill.ca/oss/article/critical-thinking/dunning-kruger-effect-probably-not-real

You have a foot? Check your privilege fgs.

Ooh, look at all the typos sowiwag did! By which I mean square brackets.

Dunning and Kruger are never far from my thoughts these days....

Of course then you also get a whole lot of blarney about 'foot' being a white colonialist social construction that naice people don't use any more, and that 'on' is a spectrum you couldn't possibly understand. And the word 'privilege' will appear somewhere in amongst it all.

If you say to them that they are standing on your foot, they look you straight in the eye and tell you "I am not standing. There is no such thing as a foot."

YY. That's exactly what it's like!

It is the tactics of Boris, Trump and Blair.

If you say to them that they are standing on your foot, they look you straight in the eye and tell you "I am not standing. There is no such thing as a foot."

The reliance is that most people will be too baffled or irritated with this stonewalling and nonsense to bother engaging further, and so they get away with it. And continue doing what they are doing.

This week we have seen a major step forward in the almighty harms this is achieving. I hope it will wake up the millions of women who need to get their eyes open and start doing something before they discover it is far too late.

I have followed this thread with interest. Lots of 'pigeon chess' as some have pointed out; some of you certainly have more patience than me. It is clear some posters just do not understand how the logic of argument works. What we do about this is worrying.

Here is an example (amongst many, nice in its clarity).

BenCoopersSupportWren:
"I desperately try to look for some kind of logic in the TQ+ movement, to make it all make sense ... But it never does make sense. There is no internal logic; it’s incoherent ..."
["It"? ... "the TQ+ movement"]

Helleofabore:
"No. It never does make sense. I am constantly disappointed by the lack of basic level of critical thinking ..."
["It"? ... "the TQ+ movement"]

Datun:
"It only makes sense if you genuinely believe that certain characteristics and thoughts are innate to men or women. ..."
["It"? ... "the TQ+ movement"]

Starlee (quotes Datun, then):
"Exactly, and I don't believe that, and I've never said it ..."

Here's an analysis of this little argument:

"It [sc. "the TQ+ movement"] only makes sense if you believe X".
(Equivalently,)
"If you don't believe X the TQ+ movement doesn't make sense".
"I don't believe X," [says Starlee]
(Therefore)
"The TQ+ movement doesn't make sense."

Could this be clearer? What Starlee says implies the TQ+ movement doesn't make sense. However, she thinks, on the contrary, that it does make sense. What is going on?

--Starlee does not understand the logic of the argument.

Is it strange someone can be so lacking in comprehension yet so sure she is right? Scary? Perhaps; but, well, we have to deal with this somehow. How? After all, people like Starlee seem to have access to the levers of power ... and to our children.

["Not only do [people like Starlee] reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it." You may recognise this: see Kruger & Dunning, Unskilled and Unaware of It, Psychology, 2009, 1, 30.]

The meaning of that question is are you a man who identifies as a woman, or are you not a man who identifies as a woman?

The entire female sex has been re-calibrated to only exist if it's in relation to a man.

If someone ever asked me if I'm cis or trans (which I can't imagine ever happening in real life) I would just answer that I'm a woman. I wouldn't succumb to any pressure to put a label on myself that doesn't even make any sense. It's like someone asking me if I'm a carrot or a beetroot. I'm a woman.

Thank you for the explanation. I have to say I'm surprised you had such a strong reaction in the above post that I quoted when you admit that you don't understand it either, it's just what Stonewall says. It seems that trans is another word that supposedly has whatever meaning the top dog gender ideologists say it has.

I can't explain it, but it is what Stonewall say.

"Trans

An umbrella term to describe people whose gender is not the same as, or does not sit comfortably with, the sex they were assigned at birth.

Trans people may describe themselves using one or more of a wide variety of terms, including (but not limited to) transgender, transsexual, gender-queer (GQ), gender-fluid, non-binary, gender-variant, crossdresser, genderless, agender, nongender, third gender, bi-gender, trans man, trans woman,trans masculine, trans feminine and neutrois."

After lots of soul searching, I'm still pretty unsure how I work out whether I'm any of these things, but not having a gender identity would seem to align with being 'agender'. - or 'genderless'. But I can't say whether my gender or lack of it is the same as my sex, because my sex is female, and I don't know if 'agender' or 'genderless' matches with female sex.

Or perhaps agender is a subset of someone who already identifies as trans.

I tend not to label myself, but sometimes there is pressure to say whether you are cis or trans or not and it's hard to answer honestly when I can't grasp what they mean. And when I question - well, you've seen from this thread how I'm treated.

Sorry should have @DeaconBoo

Please could you explain how agender is trans? I looked it up and apparently agender means not having a gender. So how can an agender person be transgender if they don't have a gender?

No, there isn't.

You can hate your body, that's body dysmorphia, but saying you must be the opposite sex is ideological.

"Why do you hate your body?"

I've got no idea.

"Why do you think you're the opposite sex?"

I've got no idea.

Not the soundest basis I've ever heard for medication and surgery.

In which case if their body isn't wrong because it's the body for the correct sex, and their thoughts and feelings aren't wrong, because they are not specific to any one sex, where is the mismatch?

They won't answer, they just deflect.
They can't even say what a match would be, let alone a mismatch. Because there's no such thing as a mind and body matching up.

And I have to ask,Starlee, did you say you have a child who's trans?

Given you've had many conversations with them, perhaps you can answer what exactly, do they think makes them the opposite sex? If it's not thoughts, feelings, or characteristics of any kind.

In which case if their body isn't wrong because it's the body for the correct sex, and their thoughts and feelings aren't wrong, because they are not specific to any one sex, where is the mismatch?

You seem to be saying that people are very unhappy, sometimes suicidal, because their bodies are wrong, for no reason whatsoever.

"It only makes sense if you genuinely believe that certain characteristics and thoughts are innate to men or women. And that the characteristics or thoughts that you yourself are having are only those experience by the opposite sex."

Exactly, and I don't believe that, and I've never said it. I have consistently pointed out that there isn't a set of thoughts that belong to a certain body type. Yet @DeaconBoo appears to believe it by constantly repeating it, and constantly demanding an answer to the question that makes no sense. As I keep pointing out.

It only makes sense if you genuinely believe that certain characteristics and thoughts are innate to men or women. And that the characteristics or thoughts that you yourself are having are only those experience by the opposite sex.

It's sexism. And it only becomes clear when you start to actually try to describe those feelings and characteristics. And to make it even worse, they're often really, really superficial.

And, of course, there are what Naomi Cunningham calls erotic cross dressers. They ain't ever gonna tell you why they want to transition. (well they do, and that's how we know, but they won't do it on here). Then it's entirely understandable. Fetishising women's oppression isn't difficult to grasp. However unpleasant.

But it never does make sense. There is no internal logic; it’s incoherent and based on hyperbole and soundbites with no substance behind them. I’m not going mad. It’s all there in black and white: the intolerance, the homophobia, the sexism of the TQ+ movement.

No. It never does make sense. I am constantly disappointed by the lack of basic level of critical thinking that comes through in the discussion points across social media. Even from academics.

It is quite purely based on emotion at this point.

However, that doesn't ever seem to be acknowledged. As none of the evidence from Nancy Kelley, Kathryn McGahey & Ivy/Mckinnon was even acknowledged. As not one peep about the completely misogynistic things that trans people say and don't ever seem to be countered by their 'loving, inclusive and happy' community. Not one.

I would like to thank Starlee for engaging at such length, even if I don’t agree with her. Partly because we can be rather ‘dog with a bone’ here and it can’t be much fun having one’s posts forensically examined by people who know what they’re talking about, but mainly because I do have regular “are we the baddies?” moments, when I desperately try to look for some kind of logic in the TQ+ movement, to make it all make sense, to allow me to get on board and “be kind”.
I’m a lefty liberal who has helped organise local Stop Hate UK events, I campaigned in favour of gay marriage as an LGB ally, I’ve volunteered for various disability charities over the years etc etc. It’s not comfortable to be thought of as a bigot after a lifetime of tolerance and supporting minorities to achieve equality. I regularly think “is it me? Have I got it all wrong?”

But it never does make sense. There is no internal logic; it’s incoherent and based on hyperbole and soundbites with no substance behind them. I’m not going mad. It’s all there in black and white: the intolerance, the homophobia, the sexism of the TQ+ movement.

So thank you, Starlee.

Thank you!
Starlee themselves even said "I really don't know what you mean by "which bodies match up with which type of inner beings?"
The question doesn't make any sense."

So they acknowledge there's no such thing as bodies matching minds, yet point me to statements of 'sex matching gender' to explain it and repeatedly say it themselves - 'not matching up' or 'being at odds' being what 'trans people feel'.

And just to clarify, because it looks like starlee completely misunderstood (or pretended to) - Starlee is the person who cannot explain the difference between gender dysphoria and body dysmorphia.

One is described as 'sex not matching gender identity' - mind not matching body. The other is being extremely uncomfortable with one's body.

When I asked what a mind matching a body might mean, Starlee could not explain or give any examples, but described it as "A trans person, male or female, does not feel 'comfortable' with the body they have, they feel it is very wrong, they feel they are in "the wrong body"".

So to explain a mismatch (gender dysphoria), starlee could ultimately only describe it as the body being wrong and the person feeling discomfort with it (body dysmorphia). (They also said they feel like 'an alien' which is an entirely separate mental disorder, but I won't go into that).

They are unable to differentiate between the two and are constantly muddling them. It does genuinely seem to me that if you want to change your (healthy, able) body for whatever reason you are body dysmorphic to some extent.

If you feel your body does not match your mind, it has yet to be explained what that is and why that is a discrete, separate thing from not being comfortable with your body.