A window in to the evil that is the trans grooming movement
(cutdowntree.substack.com)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (51)
sorted by:
A diagnosis that was invented by a pedophile. Not for a single second do I think that they actually exist.
I don't care what you believe. There's enough scientific evidence to draw a conclusion that some people are chemically different enough from their biological sex, but similar to the opposite sex that trans is real.
That's bullshit. Experts are just credentialed individuals who agree with the regime. And when you actually drill down on the science it generally doesn't actually match what "the experts" say.
One study that is widely quoted (and probably the one you are thinking of) shows that brain scans of MtF are closer to females than males are and contrariwise. They try to portray this as scans of MtF are more similar to females than males, but that isn't the case. On the PCA the centroid of the MtFs are 5% away from the centroid of males and 95% from the centroid of females and completely overlapped by males.
So if you were given a point that was an unlabeled and it was an MtF you'd be best off guessing male. Put another way you could easily separate males and MtFs (which is to say other males) from females and FtMs (which is to say other females), but you couldn't separate MtFs from males or FtMs from females.
The actual conclusion one should take from that study is that MtFs are males and FtMs are females. Even the studies author puts the average 5% difference down to neuroplasticity.
Additionally there was a recent study that was widely reported to show "gender affirmation treatment" as being effective for teenagers. The problem with it is that the untreated side of the study had like 90% attrition, so the study couldn't show anything either way. They didn't even try to explain the attrition; they just ignored it all together. Maybe they left the study so they could get "girl juice" elsewhere or maybe they naturally desisted (as most teenagers do if you leave them alone and don't pump them full of hormones).
The studies will (almost) always support the regime. We saw this with masks and ivermectin. Masks studies always showed a small positive effect within the margin of error. Early on there was that Dutch (I think) study that showed masks didn't work to protect the wearer. It was widely criticized. Funnily it actually shows a small positive effect within the margin of error, but the conclusion was masks don't work. Thereafter any study with a small positive effect within the margin of error would have a conclusion that states masks work well. Even with the effect always being small and positive you can't draw any conclusions because you don't see the studies that aren't published.
IVM was the opposite of masks. Almost all studies (including those used by NIH to conclude IVM doesn't work) showed a strong positive effect but within the margin of error because the studies were always wildly underpowered. But an effect within the margin of error was suddenly not good enough because the science will always agree with the regime.
Climate change. Glyphosates. Anything. The science will always agree with the regime. And the regime will agree with what gives them power (including agreeing with corporations that their wildly profitable products are indeed safe). Remember the 80s food pyramid? Again, the studies actually showed that high carb diets were bad but the conclusions said they were good. It only fell apart because everyone got fat and diabetic. 'Eat the wheat' was the original 'eat the bugs.'
There’s been a lot of discussion about just how rotten the academy is in terms of research. You can’t just trust the papers abstract or conclusions because often enough, either through malice or incompetence, the published data is the opposite of what the authors conclude.
oh god yeah, you had that dutch study on the effectiveness of the vaccine against omicron, and it was showing negative effectiveness after 2 months
In the discussion/conclusion they were clearly forced to come up with excuses for why that was, how it was maybe changed and risky behavior in the vaccinated, and how its still valuable and useful at the current schedule...
I don't know if it's the same study, but the one I saw was pretty similar, and then on top of it admits at the end that the trans people were taking hormones, too. Way to admit your entire study is basically trash because it fails to account for a hugely important factor in your last paragraph, assholes. And yet even with that fundamentally compromising bias in favor of brain difference, their brains were STILL more like their actual gender than their claimed gender.
And the real kicker was that it was cited by a tranny in an argument trying to prove they are real. So god only knows how damaging the studies are that aren't cherry picked by trannies themselves. Or the studies that don't get done at all, or don't get published, because there's a huge bias towards pro-lefties going into the social sciences to begin with, and even the ones that might be tempted to be honest have got to be aware of the fact that trying to execute or publish an anti-trans study might end their career.
Thats hermaphroditism not a mental disorder. Get fucked. Trannys are just MORE degenerate fags.
Hemaphroditism is physically sex characteristics. I'm talking hormones and brain shit. You get fucked, fool.
Yeah hormones have no part in hermaphroditism. Except for everything.
Tell me about your ‘brain shit’ twink? Sounds like the poppers got to you.
I'm genuinely curious, is there a study I can read on that? Are there non mental symptoms related to trans? I remember they were saying that there are some brain differences but I thought that was debunked.
If a scientific study concluded that troons are lunatics, do you think it would get through peer review or that the researcher would ever get funding again? Can you name even one gender theorist or prominent activist that condemns pedophilia?
Man and woman are forms, as are circles and squares. They are part of the pre-definitional foundation of reality that exists independent of human abstractions. "Adult human female" isn't defining woman, but describing the intersection of sets of forms with common traits. My dog can identify the forms of man and woman, even though he lacks the ability to understand or communicate the concept. To have rationalized away these fundamental truths is to completely detach from reality and descend into the depths of virulent madness.
I don't know what that means, but I don't see how that leads to "trans is real", which almost sounds like an arbitrary judgement call over anything describing reality.
I could be a female and a lesbian, tomboy, uncomfortable with my female body, 100% interested in manly pursuits, lacking any feminine traits or inclinations, yet I'm still a female. "Trans" is a self-applied identity which I would have no interest in adopting. People are certainly free to do so, but that doesn't mean it's science beyond someone writing in a journal describing what "trans" people are like. Yet leftists always defer to those journals in place of arguments, so even intelligent young people are left saying "Well it's kinda weird, but I can't argue with science." It's treated as PROVEN. You can't dispute it. This kind of Appeal to Authority and deferral to experts is one of the roots of all the poisonous movements today.
I also think that Chiropracty is a more legitimate school of medicine than Sociology is a legitimate field of science, so I'm biased.
For all the talk about how gender and race are social constructs, the "experts" are the most socially constructed of all.
Perhaps, but there are also people who are "chemically different" enough that they honestly believe that they need limbs amputated to be their true self, or that the government is is implanting radios in their teeth. Perhaps the correct solution is not to indulge in a vain attempt to chase physical impossibilities.
Yes, and those people are called skzoids.