“The person who pulled the trigger (on Charlie) is part of the demonic transgender ideology that warps the minds of our young children, that poisons them, that is antithetical to creation itself … God doesn’t make mistakes. Transgenderism is a lie from the pit of hell … and I’m sick of seeing transgender violence and murderers in my country … what a horrid and wretched ideology … it’s time to kick in doors, come on FBI, do some door-kicking, round them up.” — Questioner

That's scary.

In advancing their right to be their authentic selves, we might say the ideology that they do advance is one that respects and protects human rights.

By contrast, the word ideology better reflects the anti-transgender position. People opposed often have very rigid concepts of male and female, and often their opposition is tied to a resentment of having to recognize anything outside of their narrow paradigms. — Questioner

I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, and historically a pretty unusual one at that.

We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue.

One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise.

People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will.

Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society.

That's scary. — RogueAI

the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile.

I think the issue is viewing everything from a point of view individual rights to begin with, that is an ideology in itself, — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, I did say that. It's an ideology adhered to by a wide swath of different groups

nd historically a pretty unusual one at that. — ChatteringMonkey

is this meant to discredit it?

We have many norms that have little to do with individual rights, but are aimed at making society work collectively. And they can even be arbitrary (non-natural) to some extend, and still be important to be followed. It's important that everybody drives on the right or the left side of the road for instance to avoid a mess in traffic... it really doesn't matter what anyone's preferences are on the issue. — ChatteringMonkey

What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.

Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

One could see the institution of hetero-sexual marriage and gender-roles in something of a similar way, in that is presumably beneficial for a stable society to have man an women committed to each other and to the families they raise. — ChatteringMonkey

Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society.

The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.

People like their norms and get angry, like in traffic, if they get broken. I do think that is something that comes natural to humans. We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will. — ChatteringMonkey

Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.

Contrary to what most seem to believe, Liberalism, individualism and the promoting LGBTQ+ rights is a certain way of viewing and organising the world. It does promote certain kinds of ways of living that are different from say those that Christianity promotes.... there's no 'ideology-free' society. — ChatteringMonkey

if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself.

Who's "them"? Trans people???

Who's "them"? Trans people??? — RogueAI

I think you are referring to this:

the current US government gave them an inch, and they took a mile. — Questioner

if so, no, I meant the anti-transgender faction

is this meant to discredit it? — Questioner

No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions.

What side of the road a society drives on does not interfere with anyone's personal rights.

Active anti-transgenderism interferes with Article 12 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks. — Questioner

Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it.

Yes, stable families are good for society. But this particular "norm' does not work for everyone. Besides, it's an inaccurate presumption that anything outside the "norm" is bad for society. — Questioner

Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in.

Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010).

The characteristics that make a society stable are trust, fairness, inclusion, safety, mutual support, respect, honesty, compassion and empathy - and there is no indication that transgender persons cannot contribute in these ways.

Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Anyone who gets angry at transgender persons for living their lives according to their own (nonharmful) "norm" needs to check their judgement at the door.

if a society is to respect human rights, respecting the rights of transgender persons comes under that umbrella. it is not a category unto itself. — Questioner

Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does.

:100:

No it's meant to imply that it is an experiment that hasn't been shown to work in the longer term, as opposed to other traditions. — ChatteringMonkey

Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition."

Yeah but pointing to Universal rights is a bit like pointing to the bible to argue in favour of some Christian teaching... it's only convincing to those that already believe in it. — ChatteringMonkey

I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.

But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me.

Allowing more and more exceptions does erode the norm, that's just how human psychology works.... The idea "Why should I adhere to the norm if other shouldn't?" creeps in. — ChatteringMonkey

What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response.

Also there is a difference between tacitly allowing some people to deviate from the norm (like it was before say 2010) and actively promoting it like it is some kind of new norm (after 2010). — ChatteringMonkey

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting"

Have you just made these up by theorising about it or is there actual evidence that these are indeed the characteristic that make a stable society? The proof of the pudding is in the eating. — ChatteringMonkey

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable?

In any case, certainly you are not arguing against those characteristics contributing to a society's stability?

Again, this only follows if you already believe we should view these things solely from the point of view of individual rights. Not everybody does. — ChatteringMonkey

This opens the door to harm done to others.

Interesting opener.

My position has been that gender identity is something formed during fetal development, during the differentiation and organization of the brain during the third trimester of pregnancy. — Questioner

I reject this, so we're already at big odds.

But I mean being gender critical isn't an ideology either. Yet, you have people citing it to support clearly ideological nonsense, some of which is obviously dangerous. So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view.

I suggest we can bring up plenty of examples like your clip there to indicate an "ideology" behind trans activism, at least, and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play.

So "being trans" might or might not fit the bill, but I think more clearly both sides are talking about legitimately scary, dangerous factions. No problem admitting there's no parity when you have groups like the one you've posted the clip of supporting shit like that as compared to usually pretty isolated examples on the other side. The only comment I will make on the other side is that we're yet to see the psychological damage done by the trans ideologues (small as those groups might be) in convincing children they can change sex. A fair bit of the psychological distress seems to be borne from this lie.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Not conclusive, but it seems to be pretty replicable. Averages and all that as a pinch of salt. It wont work for everyone.

Oh, so you are arguing against individual human rights. Sorry, this just opens the door to all kinds of suppression and oppression done in the name of "tradition." — Questioner

A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional.

No society no matter what tradition will ever be perfectly free from oppression. If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights.

I can't agree with this analogy. Universal human rights is a rational response to abuses of the past. Christian teaching from the Bible is based on ancient stories. But I will say I do believe that Jesus would be totally on board with universal human rights.

But if your argument is that you do not believe in basic human rights, you have lost me. — Questioner

There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. The Chinese tradition for instance never develloped this notion of individual rights, but allways kept viewing things from a more societal point of view.

It's really the historical event of the belief in Christ that shifted the Western tradition from viewing things in terms of tribal/group consciousness to the individual. That's not the result of reason, but a shift in basic values.

And I do think there are a lot of issues with the concept of human rights. To name a few, 1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. And 2) the idea that we, 'the west', should universally impose a notion that is alien to other civilisations is also rather problematic.

What "more and more" - this seems a fear-based response. — Questioner

I'm not sure what you mean by "actively promoting" — Questioner

From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...

Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language.

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable? — Questioner

I don't know, it's an experiment like I said, and the jury is still out it seems to me, whereas we do have 'evidence' that heterosexual mariage as a norm worked reasonably well just by virtue of the fact that we are the descendants of a culture that had that norm.

This opens the door to harm done to others. — Questioner

Sure, but I don't think preventing harm is the only factor morals should be evaluated by, I'm not a utilitarian.

So to on the TRA side with the Zizians and plenty of small (and yes, mainly inconsequential) militias arming to the teeth and going after those they decide are wrong, or individuals like Jessica Yaniv waging legal wars against people due to her clear delusional world view. — AmadeusD

Yes, there are extremists in all groups. But the outliers should not decide the rule. We need to look to leadership to provide the greatest benefit for the greatest number of its citizens. For example, the policy coming out of the Trump administration has led to transgender persons fearing for their lives.

and it does clearly seem to be a 'worldview'. So, to me, 'being trans' is clearly not an ideology, but the worldview it tends to embed within can be. There are plenty of trans people who entirely reject the worldview that tends to come along with trans identity - this is the biggest point to me in assessing the factions at play. — AmadeusD

I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview."

I can retort to this by asking, what evidence do you have that any family outside the "father-mother-children" paradigm is less stable?
— Questioner

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10313020/?utm_source=chatgpt.com — AmadeusD

No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents.

A functioning society is prior to individual human rights, because without a functioning society there is no way to protect any kind of rights. Traditions are typically a key factor of how those societies are ordered and remain functional. — ChatteringMonkey

What kind of traditions are you talking about?

If that means one needs to constantly fight said traditions until there is no more oppression, that essentially means you will end up dissolving the very foundation that enables one to even talk about rights. — ChatteringMonkey

I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights.

Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.

There's nothing rationally 'necessary' about human rights. They came out a particular Western tradition, out of Christian and Greco-Roman notions of natural law, that diverged from how the rest of the world saw things. — ChatteringMonkey

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights came out of the abuses of WW2.

1) the idea that we should attach rights to an abstract notion of the individual removed from cultural, familial and societal contexts is I think antithetical to how human beings naturally tend to behave. — ChatteringMonkey

How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country?

From the occasional reporting about say a gay-pride event in mainstream media, at a certain point LGBTQ+ issues became front and center in a deliberate attempt to 'normalize' it to the general public. First in the US, and then with some delay in Europe, with interviews, seperate LGBTQ+ sections in newspapers, opinion pieces etc etc...

Edit: Also the whole pronoun debate. It doesn't get any more 'normative' than demanding everybody to change how to use language. — ChatteringMonkey

Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining.

What kind of traditions are you talking about? — Questioner

Any religious, cultural or civic traditions... like marriage is a Christian tradition.

I think the best foundation of a society is one that includes basic human rights. — Questioner

What is the justification for it? Or we're fine to just assume it as a dogma, whereas for everything else we demand reasons?

Tradition is good, too, but tradition should not be elevated to something untouchable when said tradition interferes negatively in the lives of others. Slavery was once a tradition, too.

The idea that we should emancipate people from and critique traditions continuously is itself part of a tradition, set in motion with the onset of the enlightenment.

How do the protection of human rights erode attachment to family, culture, or country? — Questioner

It's not the human rights themselves that erode those attachments. Human rights are the result or end-product of a constant process of questioning and critiqueing traditions. They became detached from any living tradition... bloodless and abstract.

Eek, you're getting into nuisances here. Like, kinda like, whining. — Questioner

Are you serious? You asked me what I meant with actively promoting (as opposed to tacitly allowing), and I gave you the answer.

Any religious, cultural or civic traditions... like marriage is a Christian tradition. — ChatteringMonkey

I think this is the crux of the matter for you? Well, Christian marriage is certainly available to those who desire it, It's not going away. But some chose alternative lifestyles. Why should they not be given that choice?

Or we're fine to just assume it as a dogma — ChatteringMonkey

I think framing human rights as dogma in a negative light, yet advocating for Christian marriage for all, is somewhat an inconsistent position.

Human rights are the result or end-product of a constant process of questioning and critiqueing traditions. They became detached from any living tradition... bloodless and abstract. — ChatteringMonkey

Some traditions should be questioned and critiqued.

Are you serious? You asked me what I meant with actively promoting (as opposed to tacitly allowing), and I gave you the answer. — ChatteringMonkey

You didn't cite active promotion, you cited nuisances. No-one is taking out ads in the newspapers, "Become transgender today!" No-one is coercing anyone to become transgender.

I'm not a Christian, I'm not necessarily promoting the Christian institution of marriage here... it was just an example of how one could view this issue from another perspective.

This is probably where we don't agree:

You didn't cite active promotion, you cited nuisances. No-one is taking out ads in the newspapers, "Become transgender today!" No-one is coercing anyone to become transgender. — Questioner

Earlier I said the following:

We get educated into following a certain set of norms, ideals and role-models and we then usually spread those in turn to the next generations etc and that ultimately produces a certain kind of society... we are mimetic beings is you will. — ChatteringMonkey

I don't think anyone needs to be coerced into being transgender for it to have an effect on people, because I think people tend to copy things they see. That's why advertising works. People will opt more readily for marriage and take it seriously if they feel that is the 'normal' thing to do, if they see other famous and succesfull people do the same.

Just by virtue of normalising a whole host of other kinds of relations and genderroles, you will influence some people following these other models. Now I'm not saying that is necessarily a bad thing, but I do think you effectively alter society in a way a Christian or Muslim might object to given the way he views the world and the kind of society he would prefer.

All of this to say that it's not ideology-neutral either way, which was part of your original claim.

But the outliers should not decide the rule — Questioner

Definitely with you this. I do my best not to - but then, I don't see someone like Kirk as an extremist where plenty will. I thikn that's unfounded and unfortunate - again, there may just be daylight we can't cut across if so. Not an accusation on you, just talking about the wider conversation more generally.

I like that you introduced the word "worldview" - good word. Although, I am not sure what you mean by the "trans identity worldview." — Questioner

Well, there seems to me to be a stark different between trans people who essentially just see the world as it is, and accept there's an unfortunate aspect to their nature on the one hand, and trans people who make it their entire identity and everything in their life hinges on ways in which that identity can be inculcated into all those other aspects. That seems ideological. Yaniv is probably a good, while comedic (from a detached perspective anyway), example there. The way people make that joke about how a Vegan will let you know they're vegan - even if trans people weren't, in 99% of cases easily identifiable physically, the group I'm talking about will make it plenty obvious before you have a chance to assess their height and find out their surname (quip, not claim).

No, sorry, that study does not apply, since it compares stable families with families that have dissolved. Not the same thing at all as comparing cisgender parents to transgender parents. — Questioner

That wasn't specifically a question I was answering (hence, not quoting it). In a "fully trans" family, it will be a nuclear family, albeit with the sexes switched for the gendered roles. I think the logic applies.

I also don't see how that difference changes the conclusions of the study - the point is that the dissolved families are more likely to draw outside the noted framework (fwiw, I don't care and wouldn't encourage or discourage any type of family unit that isn't abusive).

That seems ideological. Yaniv is probably a good, while comedic (from a detached perspective anyway), example there. — AmadeusD

Yaniv has caused more harm than help to the cause of transgender persons, so not quite so comedic. I don't think she is representative of the vast majority of transgender persons, and should not be used as the example to represent the community. She is no more representative of that community than Trump is of the American people.

All of this to say that it's not ideology-neutral either way, which was part of your original claim. — ChatteringMonkey

My claim was that identity is not ideology. Ideology may be constructed around that - like whether or not to provide a safe space for transgender persons to be themselves. If religious dogma interferes with that, that is using ideology to suppress identity.

My claim was that identity is not ideology. Ideology may be constructed around that - like whether or not to provide a safe space for transgender persons to be themselves. If religious dogma interferes with that, that is using ideology to suppress identity. — Questioner

I also think some are born that way. For others I have my doubts, and wonder if they haven't been influenced by culture to some extend. That's why I don't have an issue with helping transgenders, but at the same time do have some reservations about the way it has been dealt with culturally.

I’ve been reading this morning about two psychobiological processes: interoception and alexithymia – and especially as to how they relate to transgender persons and self-identity.

Interoception is the ability to connect with and interpret the body’s internal signals. A sensory, or neurophysiological capacity, it’s like a data stream coming from the body to the brain.

Alexithymia is a difficulty in interpreting those signals. Signals may be received, but it’s not always possible to make sense or meaning out of them. (The result of alexithymia is often a feeling of disembodiment.)

Research shows that the lower interoceptive coherence in transgender individuals corresponds with worse mental-health outcomes.

Further research shows that “nonautistic transgender participants reported significantly higher mean levels of alexithymia than nonautistic cisgender participants, and that there was a significant overrepresentation of individuals in this group who met the clinical cutoff for alexithymia.”

Transgender individuals experiencing dysphoria are literally and biologically less connected to their bodies.

This interferes with the construction of self-identity, which naturally relies on the signals interpreted by the brain. Only if you feel connected to your body can you say, “This body is me.”

And indeed, studies show that gender-affirming care improves interoception and decreases alexithymia – a decrease associated with increased emotional clarity:

“Alexithymia changes were found after gender-affirming hormone therapy for transgender women in both fantasizing and identifying … These findings suggest a considerable influence of estrogen administration and androgen suppression on brain networks implicated in interoception, own-body perception and higher-level cognition.”

This also appears to support the research that shows that gender transition, by treating self-alienation, restores and strengthens diachronic unity.

aniv has caused more harm than help to the cause of transgender persons, so not quite so comedic. — Questioner

That's fair - As i say, from a detached perspective. But I agree, anyway. It's just cartoonish. Maybe that would have been better phrasing.

She is no more representative of that community than Trump is of the American people. — Questioner

I think the apt way to put this is "republicans". Otherwise its apples and oranges. Not to say your point about Yaniv isn't meaningful. But do bear in mind, that applies to plenty of voices in the trans community, including those who carry out violence and intimidation on behalf of their identatarian thought regime. I know this isn't representative of "trans" but its what the world has to deal with. I hope it's been noted I know (well, and not so well) plenty of trans people due to both my previous "extreme left" social life and my work life. I have no problem with people expressing themselves. Its that I do not believe for a moment that "trans" is some immutable, born-this-way characteristic of anyone. Feminniity and masculinity may be biologically influenced, but I can't go much further than that. Clear, social aspects influence those traits far more than biology in the modern world and that gives pause.

psychobiological processes: interoception and alexithymia — Questioner

This may become redundant, but I don't understand either of these as processes. They appear to be either conditions or facilities (one of which I have been diagnosed with in the past). Onward..

Alexithymia is a difficulty in interpreting those signals. — Questioner

It seems more correct that this is an issue identifying and processing emotions and noting them via body language or subtle spoken language. Its a very "spectrum" condition. I was diagnosed with it as an aspect of DsD at one point. It is known as "emotional blindness". Careful not to conflate the former, which is the body's ability to process internal signalling like temperature, hunger and muscle tension with the latter, which is problems processing emotions.

Further research shows that “nonautistic transgender participants reported significantly higher mean levels of alexithymia than nonautistic cisgender participants, and that there was a significant overrepresentation of individuals in this group who met the clinical cutoff for alexithymia. — Questioner

This indicates an overlap between trans and autism spectrum disorder. This is expected by most who do not take trans as a standalone mental state. It actually indicates that what's being discovered is high levels of autism in those claiming a trans identity. Two ways of looking at hte same coin.

Transgender individuals experiencing dysphoria are literally and biologically less connected to their bodies. — Questioner

These terms do not make sense, I don't think - you are, biologically, your body (well - not quite. But you cannot escape your body in any way). You cannot be biologically disconnected from it in any way other than to remove parts of it (lets not go there). I don't know what you might mean by "literally" in this case.

This interferes with the construction of self-identity, which naturally relies on the signals interpreted by the brain. Only if you feel connected to your body can you say, “This body is me.” — Questioner

I disagree, but i fully understand the point and take it. As with the previous note above, that conclusion could (and I read the majority of the paper) equally indicate that being focused on oneself for long enoguh will do the trick. That seems true.

The suggestion in the paper could be correct, but it could also simply mean that TW who have been self-obsessed for a long enough time increase their bodily awareness and therefore interoception. It could just be a matter overcoming an internal ignorance.

I don't know - but it's hard to read those papers (particularly in the middle of hte replication crisis, and with such incredibly small sample sizes) as showing much.

This may become redundant, but I don't understand either of these as processes. They appear to be either conditions or facilities (one of which I have been diagnosed with in the past). Onward.. — AmadeusD

yes, honestly, I did too wonder too if I was choosing the right word. I changed it to "elements" and then changed it back. Facilities or capacities may be better words.

It seems more correct that this is an issue identifying and processing emotions and noting them via body language or subtle spoken language. Its a very "spectrum" condition. I was diagnosed with it as an aspect of DsD at one point. It is known as "emotional blindness". Careful not to conflate the former, which is the body's ability to process internal signalling like temperature, hunger and muscle tension with the latter, which is problems processing emotions. — AmadeusD

Good addition to the discussion. Yes, I do understand that interoception and alexithymia are two different aspects of internal body function, but they are connected in the loop that contributes to self-identity.

When we cite "emotional blindness" - to what are the emotions blind? Clues and signals from the body.

This indicates an overlap between trans and autism spectrum disorder. This is expected by most who do not take trans as a standalone mental state. It actually indicates that what's being discovered is high levels of autism in those claiming a trans identity. Two ways of looking at hte same coin. — AmadeusD

Not exactly. From what I read, being "nonautistic" was a controlled variable in the study, since autistic persons tend to have higher rates of alexithymia. The two relevant variables in the study were transgender vs. cisgender.

These terms do not make sense, I don't think - you are, biologically, your body (well - not quite. But you cannot escape your body in any way). You cannot be biologically disconnected from it in any way other than to remove parts of it (lets not go there). I don't know what you might mean by "literally" in this case. — AmadeusD

I don't mean connected by muscle, blood and bone, but by the electrochemical signals coursing through your nervous system. Nervous system communication is confused and can result in depersonalization.

As with the previous note above, that conclusion could (and I read the majority of the paper) equally indicate that being focused on oneself for long enoguh will do the trick. That seems true.

The suggestion in the paper could be correct, but it could also simply mean that TW who have been self-obsessed for a long enough time increase their bodily awareness and therefore interoception. It could just be a matter overcoming an internal ignorance.

I don't know - but it's hard to read those papers (particularly in the middle of hte replication crisis, and with such incredibly small sample sizes) as showing much. — AmadeusD

It all made perfect sense to me. I can't see a reason to introduce self-absorption or an "internal ignorance" into the discussion.

When we cite "emotional blindness" - to what are the emotions blind? Clues and signals from the body. — Questioner

Hmm, tough one. I can't say this strikes me as 'right'. Emotions seem to come from (or at least arise in) the mind. Not being able to adequately parse the mental states that accompany what we routine call.. pick your poison: sadness, exultation, disappointment etc.. seems to be what it refers to. But you're otherwise right, in that this is included in the loop that creates a perceived self-identity.

Not exactly. From what I read, being "nonautistic" was a controlled variable in the study, since autistic persons tend to have higher rates of alexithymia. The two relevant variables in the study were transgender vs. cisgender. — Questioner

I'm unsure what control is used changes my (tentative and certainly not detailed) conclusion. I understand that the groups in question were those groups - I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. I think the results would edify this study nicely. But again, replication etc.. so happy to accept both possible interpretations.

I don't mean connected by muscle, blood and bone, but by the electrochemical signals coursing through your nervous system. Nervous system communication is confused and can result in depersonalization. — Questioner

Oh, ok I see what you mean. Fair enough - maybe hte terms were just unclear.

I can't see a reason to introduce self-absorption or an "internal ignorance" into the discussion. — Questioner

Because they adequately explain the results. It might not be the case, or might be a mild contributing factor (I think that's fairly uncontroversial to claim).. I suppose partially i'm going by experience too. Again, happy to accept both interpretations as it stands.

Hmm, tough one. I can't say this strikes me as 'right'. Emotions seem to come from (or at least arise in) the mind. Not being able to adequately parse the mental states that accompany what we routine call.. pick your poison: sadness, exultation, disappointment etc.. — AmadeusD

That the body reacts faster than the mind is well established scientifically:

Your body reacts before your mind during triggers because your nervous system constantly scans for danger through a subconscious process called neuroception. This automatic threat-detection system, located in primitive parts of your brain, evaluates safety and risk without requiring conscious thought.

I would want to see a comparison with autistic non-trans people and non-autistic trans people. — AmadeusD

Well, this would go against well-established practices of how the scientific method is used. In any one study, there must be one independent variable and one dependent variable, and all other variables that might affect the outcome of the dependent variable must be controlled. So looking at autistic/nonautistic/trans/cis - introduces too many variables.

Because they adequately explain the results. — AmadeusD

Well, this introduces a totally new hypothesis and suggests a new study to be done!