Thanks for the detailed reply! Indeed, 2 is the main group I was thinking of and which seems most affected by the whole...just using Blanchardianism as a way to legitimize their disdain for (perhaps not all) trans women, although that’s probably an oversimplification. I’m happy for groups 3 and 4 having a way to reason about their personal experience as well. Group 1 is the one I’m most interested in—it does seem reasonable to not just assume that all people are equal and that differences between groups could impact how we should structure society. I follow as far as:
They are usually conservatives trying to build models of society which acknowledge human differences as causes of group outcomes and ignore the relevance of ideology.
Although I don’t have very much faith that these questions can be well answered with much confidence. I totally disagree by:
And Blanchardianism is also important to them because they are ordinarily conservative so they kind of want to say that trans women are socially bad in an abstract way.
A while back, I had a conversation with ChatGPT to try to understand the conservative perspective on trans people and it finally managed to stump me when it justified its claims on the basis of religious morality. I imagine this is a similar situation—I don’t quite understand how trans women transitioning in part because of autogynephilia is actually relevant for how we should structure society or how one ought to interact with a trans person. After all, cis/het people can make big life decisions like marrying a specific person (partly) on the basis of their sexual desire, and everyone seems okay with that. Does the argument go deeper than “autogynephilia bad and standard cishet sexual behavior okay because [gestures vaguely at religion or tradition]”?
...one controversy that has recently come up is “rapid-onset gender dysphoria”, a phenomenon where teens come out as trans to their parents and want to transition, without having exhibited unambiguous signs of transness early on. Some parents think that this is due to social contagion and that their children should be forced to go through puberty as their natal sex and should leave the ideology that caused the transness. The O.G. Blanchardians say that this is probably what happens among AFABs, but that among AMABs it is instead probably due to autogynephilia, and that it is plausible they could benefit from transition.
It seems pretty legit that questions about sexuality and previous gender dysphoria could help determine whether someone should transition (i.e. if they will be happier and not want to detransition with high probability). It also seems like the decision rule could be informed by whether Blanchardianism is correct or not. Thanks!
A while back, I had a conversation with ChatGPT to try to understand the conservative perspective on trans people and it finally managed to stump me when it justified its claims on the basis of religious morality.
I don’t think ChatGPT is good at conservatism. 😅 AI ethics STRONK.
I imagine this is a similar situation—I don’t quite understand how trans women transitioning in part because of autogynephilia is actually relevant for how we should structure society or how one ought to interact with a trans person. After all, cis/het people can make big life decisions like marrying a specific person (partly) on the basis of their sexual desire, and everyone seems okay with that. Does the argument go deeper than “autogynephilia bad and standard cishet sexual behavior okay because [gestures vaguely at religion or tradition]”?
After paying closer attention to some conservatives (especially Richard Hanania) for a while, I came up with this model. More recently, I’ve also gotten into intergenerational trauma as a further model of these things. (Roughly: Conservatives see how progressives fight them to introduce a bunch of progressive stuff, they decide that this means progressive stuff is their enemy, so they oppose it.)
Thanks for the detailed reply! Indeed, 2 is the main group I was thinking of and which seems most affected by the whole...just using Blanchardianism as a way to legitimize their disdain for (perhaps not all) trans women, although that’s probably an oversimplification. I’m happy for groups 3 and 4 having a way to reason about their personal experience as well. Group 1 is the one I’m most interested in—it does seem reasonable to not just assume that all people are equal and that differences between groups could impact how we should structure society. I follow as far as:
Although I don’t have very much faith that these questions can be well answered with much confidence. I totally disagree by:
A while back, I had a conversation with ChatGPT to try to understand the conservative perspective on trans people and it finally managed to stump me when it justified its claims on the basis of religious morality. I imagine this is a similar situation—I don’t quite understand how trans women transitioning in part because of autogynephilia is actually relevant for how we should structure society or how one ought to interact with a trans person. After all, cis/het people can make big life decisions like marrying a specific person (partly) on the basis of their sexual desire, and everyone seems okay with that. Does the argument go deeper than “autogynephilia bad and standard cishet sexual behavior okay because [gestures vaguely at religion or tradition]”?
It seems pretty legit that questions about sexuality and previous gender dysphoria could help determine whether someone should transition (i.e. if they will be happier and not want to detransition with high probability). It also seems like the decision rule could be informed by whether Blanchardianism is correct or not. Thanks!
I don’t think ChatGPT is good at conservatism. 😅 AI ethics STRONK.
After paying closer attention to some conservatives (especially Richard Hanania) for a while, I came up with this model. More recently, I’ve also gotten into intergenerational trauma as a further model of these things. (Roughly: Conservatives see how progressives fight them to introduce a bunch of progressive stuff, they decide that this means progressive stuff is their enemy, so they oppose it.)