Violence Against Women

[EatsBrainsAndLeaves]

Just been reading this blog post which talks about women who Transition as violence against women. I agree with her.

[Warning from MNHQ - this contains graphic images]

dirtywhiteboi67.blogspot.co.uk/2012/09/transition-violence-against-women.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed:+TheDirtFromDirt+(The+dirt+from+Dirt)

Eats - so are you a 'professional' in this field? Or have you just read some stuff, like anyone else can?
As I'd said, and most posters here remember, there were multi-threads on the subject of transgender, and a few transgendered people contributed. I'd indicated my personal and professional interest in the discussion.
For me, amongst others, I know v well a F-M person - he is now v happy with 3 children. He was on a radio4 prog with Michael Burke a few years ago where he spoke eloquently about his experience as a 'girl' and how 'wrong' and unhappy he was. No media black out there.

And, it's fairly arrogant, or at least rude, to post an OP like this and wander off.
No wonder you've accrued a name as the sort of poster that you have.

A la above.."I'm out".

You know what i think I am going to report this whole thread, the level of ignorance and prejudice against mental illness is shocking and very upsetting.

If the other posters though think it worthwhile talking this through some more I will hold off.

No, sorry, I asked for original research papers, please.

I know there are lots of them. Since I have a university subscription to journals, I'd like your recommendations of those you've read, while I can access them too.

Thanks.

It'll be fun: we can discuss them and you can do a precis of what they're all about for us.

Yes and that blog provides links to original research papers.

Surgery like this is violence against women. The link does not take you to photos of surgery which always looks gory, but of the results after surgery. You can see that the results do not look good. And the research shows that women are not even happier afterwards after the initial period of time.

We need to develop a psychological programme to support these women.

Yes, but if you are an expert, you will be familiar with many research papers.

I would like their citation info, please.

And then we can discuss what they're saying and how they fit into the general scholarship.

Seriously - if you are an expert, I would love the chance to do this. I only have subscription for a short while more, so would really like to read what you've read.

Do you ever take anything in, or only things that come from your very narrow point of reference?

LRD - I havent got time, or the inclination to spend 20 minutes cutting and pasting lots of links here. Read the research papers linked to on that blog and we can then discuss those. The links are there for you

That was to Eats obviously.

Forgive me, but I do not believe you.

You claimed to be an expert. You clearly wished to discuss the subject - you started a thread - but you cannot back up your claims.

Please either post the links and discuss them with us properly, or retract your claim to be an expert.

Incidentally, I simply do not believe an 'expert' would need to C&P links. An expert would remember what they read, and would be able to summarize it such a way as would demonstrate their expertise.

You would be referring us to specific authors, or papers by their titles - not blog posts.

How many times? Follow the link I gave you. There there are lots of citations for research papers. The research papers proving a biological origin for gender dysphoria are bunkum. That is the point.

Browsing through that blog, btw, frankly, it reads as if the blogger doesn't realize she's reading the abstract of the article and not the article! I may be wrong here, but it doesn't inspire confidence.

eats, papers don't 'prove'. They demonstrate.

This is extremely basic science that a person with a good GCSE would know.

Please explain where your 'expert' opinion comes from, without reference to the blog.

Obviously, if you are an expert, you will be able to do this.

LRD you are right the existing research shows no evidence at all that there is a biological basis for gender dysphoria. And i am not revealing anything personal about myself here!

I didn't say that, so I don't know why you think I am 'right'.

I didn't ask you to reveal anything personal.

I am simply asking you to provide citations - not from that blog - for the articles you've read. And expert precis so the rest of us can understand.

Btw, because the specific article linked to is (as far as I can see), an article in a book and not a journal research paper, I can't access the whole thing.

So, could you link to something else that's likely to be in an online journal? That way I and others will be able to find it without having access to a specialist university library at midnight.

I've got to say, having dug, from the incomplete version of that article ('Sexual hormones and the brain: an essential alliance for sexual identity and sexual orientation.') I can find, doesn't look good. It begins with some unsupported truisms, on which I know there is contradictory research.

However, I find the blog review of it truly bizarre. The publication looks to me as if it's intended as a review of the state of the subject (ie., paediatric neuroendocrinology). Such books do not typically present new work, but rather summaries of old work - which is what this article (very poorly) does.

Maybe it's been cited to kingdom come, and that's why the blog author is so fed up with hearing it cited. But s/he doesn't say that: s/he expresses concerns with the methodology.

And eats reiterates those claims, without any further sense of the state of the field.

I am not remotely an expert, I have no clue what's going on in medicine at all. A first year med student would be immesurably better informed. So I'm not pretending I know what's going on.

So, perhaps some proper citations - and explanations - would help.

From the preface: 'This volume covers a wide range of topics in pediatric neuroendocrinology and informs the reader of the latest scientific developments'.

It's not claiming to produce new experimental evidence.

Criticizing it for not producing new experimental evidence is therefore bizarre (and suggests the blogger hasn't actually read the preface, or possibly, anything other than the abstract).

By all means criticize it for being a shoddy piece of work ...