[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.

[jamesrcole]

That one person wasn't scared off provides no evidence about how many other people were or weren't scared off.

That he might be the worst has zero bearing on this.

[Dylan16807]

None? Really? You think there's a zero percent correlation?

[jamesrcole]

"If one of the worst members wasn't scared off, that's a good piece of evidence." Yes, I think that him being one of the worst has zero bearing. You made the claim - why do you think it's good evidence?

[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.

[chroma]

It really seems like you're asking, "Must I believe this?" instead of "What is true?" You picked a couple of questions on the survey to try to dismiss the study. Someone believing the opposite of you could have picked "attraction to male physique" (where trans women score lower) combined with "attraction to feminine males" (where they score higher) to bolster the autogynephilia theory. There's also the complication that trans women seem to be closer to men in other psychological measures (less masochism, less jealousy, preference for younger partners).

Pretty much all studies are complex enough that one can poke a couple holes in them this way. If that's enough to dismiss a study, then it's hard for us to believe anything in soft sciences.

And yes, the first study only looked at trans and cis women. But did you look at the amateur survey? It also surveyed trans and cis men. It reproduced the results of the academic study despite the creator of the amateur survey having no knowledge of it. That's some pretty convincing evidence in my book.

Also, do you have any studies that show that the majority of cis women would be considered autogynephilic? Because the only study I've found that asserts this is Autogynephilia in Women[1], which counted women as autogynephilic if they answered anything other than "never" to 9 questions about potentially arousing experiences. If someone answered "on occasion" to any question in that list, they were considered autogynephilic. When one of the questions is, "I have been erotically aroused by imagining that others find me particularly sexy, attractive, or irresistible.", it's easy to see what the authors of the study were trying to do. Nobody who is testing for autogynephilia uses such a low threshold.

1. https://sci-hub.tw/10.1080/00918360903005212

[Dylan16807]

Let me put it this way: Being able to distinguish groups is not enough. The core of the theory is that these people have a fundamentally different underlying reason for feeling female.

I'll keep this study in mind, but without more context it doesn't seem to show a difference like that on 90% of the parameters. With more numbers maybe it would... but I don't have them.

I picked those questions because they showed some of the strongest statistical results. But they also have a very obvious alternate explanation that needs to be tested.

Especially because:

"Transsexual participants were categorized as autogynephilic or non-autogynephilic based on their scores on the Core Autogynephilia, Autogynephilic Interpersonal Fantasy, Attraction to Feminine Males, and Attraction to Transgender Fiction scales."

This desperately needs a comparison where they apply the same technique to the biological female data.

(Though that the last one is really tricky, because maybe a better analogy is "waking up as a woman, as usual, hooray" fiction and that's far too bland and common to be a genre.)

> It reproduced the results of the academic study despite the creator of the amateur survey having no knowledge of it. That's some pretty convincing evidence in my book.

Convincing of some overall trends. But the theory is much more than that.

> Also, do you have any studies that show that the majority of cis women would be considered autogynephilic?

No, I haven't spent that much time on this subject before to the point of digging up studies.

[chroma]

> No, I haven't spent that much time on this subject before to the point of digging up studies.

What? But you said this earlier:

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

Why did you state that as fact when you had no clue what the academic consensus was? If you’re going to make such assertions, you need to base them on evidence.

[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.

[jamesrcole]

That is not true.

What I did was not simply asking a person to back up a claim they made. If that was the case you could call me out for inconsistency.

I was responding to a person who had claimed to have provided some evidence that they had not actually given.

I responded to a sentence that was presenting a claim, and also implying that the evidence for their claim was given earlier in their comment, which I did not believe was the case.

That sentence was: "So no, OP, academics who didn't support trans politics weren't scared off by the community".

That 'So no' implies that the evidence for the claim has been given earlier in their comment. I did not see any evidence in their comment, so I asked if they could provide some.

[joshuamorton]

Then they did, and you've called that evidence unconvincing. But it is still evidence. More than the zero you've gotten (or requested) from the original claim.

[jamesrcole]

No, I did not see any evidence there at all, and I wrote my comment on the basis of that.

Having seen the subsequent replies, I can now see how other people have taken it as a form of evidence.

While I can now see why other people might consider it evidence for the claim, I do not consider it to be such myself (in the sense of 'evidence' being something that supports a claim).