[Jim_Heckler]

> Additionally, Ray Blanchard, an academic who believes transgenderism is caused by "autogynephilia"/"autoandrophilia" (i.e. a sexual fetish caused by attraction to oneself as the desired gender), was a member of the committee who decided the DSM-V definition.

[jamesrcole]

That is not evidence for the claim "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community."

[danharaj]

If you understood who Ray Blanchard is you would understand that it is. Insofar as a negative can have supporting evidence.

[jamesrcole]

[EDIT: do the people downvoting this care to explain why they disagree with it? Just because one person was involved is not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment. Nor is it evidence that there was no harassment. If you disagree, why?]

His role and behavior is independent of whether there was harassment of academics from people. He may have had that role and either one of these three options could possibly have happened: 1) no harassment of academics from people 2) some harassment 3) a lot of harassment.

To claim that Blanchard’s involvement is evidence that there was no harassment, you’d have to demonstrate that somehow that involvement is incompatible with 2) or 3).

[Dylan16807]

> not evidence other people weren't scared off because of harassment

If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion. (You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse.)

[jamesrcole]

> If that abomination of a researcher wasn't scared off, it's pretty strong evidence that there wasn't any significant harassment that had a chilling effect on discussion.

Just because one person wasn't scared off doesn't mean they didn't get a lot of harassment. I don't know whether they did or didn't, but the fact that they weren't scared off is not evidence they didn't get lots of harassment.

And that doesn't mean other people weren't scared off. Different people have different tolerances for harassment, and differing degrees to which they want to be involved in a particular matter.

> You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis. Whatever you think about the nature of transgenderism, applying that particular theory leads to nothing but pain and abuse.

This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments.

[Dylan16807]

"academics [...] weren't scared off" isn't a claim that not a single person was scared off, but that as a group they were not scared off. If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence.

> This has absolutely nothing to do with the content of any of my comments.

I'm explaining why he's one of the most extreme members of that group, which is needed to support my main point.

[chroma]

> You can apply all the "autogynephilia" testing and logic to most cis women and they'll come out with a strong diagnosis.

That is not true. Trans women score much higher on tests of autogynephilia.[1] This is even found to be true in amateur surveys.[2] Trans females score the highest, then cis males, then cis females. Trans males have the lowest scores for autogynephilia.

1. https://sci-hub.tw/10.1007/s10508-007-9306-9 From the abstract:

> The results showed that, overall, transsexuals tended to place more importance on partner’s physical attractiveness and reported higher scores on Blanchard’s Core Autogynephilia Scale than biological females.

2. https://www.reddit.com/r/TheMotte/comments/et039t/independen...

[Dylan16807]

This study isn't super helpful because it doesn't give a number for cis men to compare to. But being able to statistically distinguish between 41 and 35, standard deviation 10, or between 3.08 and 2.93, standard deviation 1.4, doesn't exactly give a ton of evidence to the idea that your test groups have fundamentally different underlying reasons for feeling female.

And I wouldn't be surprised if the huge difference on "Attraction to Transgender Fiction" or "Interest in Uncommitted Sex" are begging the question. If you filter biological women on the same criteria you'd probably have similar answer patterns there.

Also the "autogynephilic transsexual" group is the one closer to the "biological female" group on a bunch of these metrics.

[joshuamorton]

The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy.

[jamesrcole]

> The claim wasn't that there was or wasn't harassment, but that harassment was the cause of the change in policy.

hsyqiwgx wrote "The trans community lobbied and bothered academics ... until the academics threw up their hands and decided their funding wasn't good enough to justify having a spine".

sterlind replied "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community."

The claim that both of these people were talking about, concerned academics being harassed and as a result being scared off.

And just because that one person was involved, doesn't mean that other people weren't scared off.

[joshuamorton]

I'll just note you're only asking one side of this argument for any validation of their claims. And that side has provided more validation than the other.