I am a trans guy (natal female). And, yes, I was a professional (LCSW) member of WPATH until 2022 and a faculty member of the WPATH Global Education Institute until 2021 when I spoke out against "Gender-Affirming Care" for minors.
thanks, I recall watching some YouTube discussions you had perhaps 18 months ago? I had the impression WPATH contracted you to write some reflections on ethics and their approach to medicalising minors? Very interesting.
I did serve on the WPATH Ethics Committee for two years. It was an unpaid appointed position. I was not contracted to write for the Committee or the Association.
I listened to 3 or 4 of your YT discussions and thought you were genuinely caring...just misguided in my understanding of things. There is so much I'd be curious to ask you!...but is rendered too difficult due to my being a woman believing there are only sex mimics, and not a single human ever that trans-mogrified into the sex opposite to what they were born. I do not believe there is any credible evidence supporting enabling young people to believe becoming lifelong sex impersonators is a good choice to flourish. Quite the opposite.
I concur with your assertion regarding gender transition, making one the opposite sex. What injecting testosterone into my body starting at age 39 did for me was allow me the space to present as masculine minus the social ramifications I had endured since adolescence as a masculine female. I do not believe that I have become male as a result. Most transsexuals do not.
Essentially Shannon has said “I really wish those people would shut up and go away. I don’t like what they are saying, I judge who is saying it, how they are saying it and why they are saying it. I fear they are unfairly criticising people I like and agree with and with my own viewpoint”.
It would be so much more interesting if she actually debated an idea or statement she disagreed with rather than dismissing the rival choir as annoying and irrelevant.
Have you heard of the Principle of Charity in philosophy? It suggests reading a person's words in their best possible light, without imagining any malice that hasn't been explicitly expressed. Steelmanning is a similar concept. It helps you strengthen your position.
I don't actually want anyone to "shut up and go away." One of the people I'm thinking of, I suspect, is lashing out because of personal trauma. I don't need her agreement or apology or disappearance. Rather, I want her to think more clearly, strengthen her arguments, and avoid making things worse for the causes she ostensibly supports.
A good thought experiment is universal. There's absolutely no reason for me to write an article about how @angrychick69 needs to stfu. If I did that, the person would stfu, or not, and the world would continue as it did before.
There is, however, an a reason to invite readers to consider universal proposals (like, i.e., avoiding in-group language facilitates clarity). Does the reader agree with my assertion? And if so, is she acting in conflict with it anyway? And if so, can she explain why? And if she can explain why, maybe she's got something to teach _me_.
Why don't you instead tell me when logical fallacies are good? When preaching to the people who already agree with you is effective, and what it accomplishes? Why you might use in-group language instead of opting for clarity? How ignorance is actually a great starting point?
Given the limitations of using Substack, I'll do each question individually
#1
If you want to make strides in a movement—any movement—you have to persuade certain people the cause is just. Who are these people? When you write an article or post a tweet, are you talking to them? If not, who are you talking to? What do you hope will happen?
“Who” are the "certain people" you refer to who are doing that? Can you give 2 specific examples?
Perhaps my mistake has been to assume that others share this goal. Maybe they're just trying to make friends, or identify enemies, or let off a little steam. They're only human, after all, and humans get mean and irrational and short-sighted. But I must confess: I’d prefer if they stopped doing so publicly and in my team's name.
What are they doing publicly? Who is doing it publicly? Who are your "team"? Why do you feel you are in a "team"?
I believe I need the obligatory “social media presence” to promote my work—even if such is bad for the soul and takes away from time spent touching grass. I often limit short-form platforms to philosophical musings and favorite songs. But those attempts I make at persuasion, there or here, are made with an audience in mind.
If social media isn't effective social activism, why do feel presence on social media is obligatory? Why do you believe your writings qualify as "persuasion"?
Preach!
You are a woman who says they are a man? Do I recognise your name as someone who worked for WPATH?
I am a trans guy (natal female). And, yes, I was a professional (LCSW) member of WPATH until 2022 and a faculty member of the WPATH Global Education Institute until 2021 when I spoke out against "Gender-Affirming Care" for minors.
thanks, I recall watching some YouTube discussions you had perhaps 18 months ago? I had the impression WPATH contracted you to write some reflections on ethics and their approach to medicalising minors? Very interesting.
I did serve on the WPATH Ethics Committee for two years. It was an unpaid appointed position. I was not contracted to write for the Committee or the Association.
I listened to 3 or 4 of your YT discussions and thought you were genuinely caring...just misguided in my understanding of things. There is so much I'd be curious to ask you!...but is rendered too difficult due to my being a woman believing there are only sex mimics, and not a single human ever that trans-mogrified into the sex opposite to what they were born. I do not believe there is any credible evidence supporting enabling young people to believe becoming lifelong sex impersonators is a good choice to flourish. Quite the opposite.
I concur with your assertion regarding gender transition, making one the opposite sex. What injecting testosterone into my body starting at age 39 did for me was allow me the space to present as masculine minus the social ramifications I had endured since adolescence as a masculine female. I do not believe that I have become male as a result. Most transsexuals do not.
"Cold and dry, a stone."
Essentially Shannon has said “I really wish those people would shut up and go away. I don’t like what they are saying, I judge who is saying it, how they are saying it and why they are saying it. I fear they are unfairly criticising people I like and agree with and with my own viewpoint”.
It would be so much more interesting if she actually debated an idea or statement she disagreed with rather than dismissing the rival choir as annoying and irrelevant.
Have you heard of the Principle of Charity in philosophy? It suggests reading a person's words in their best possible light, without imagining any malice that hasn't been explicitly expressed. Steelmanning is a similar concept. It helps you strengthen your position.
I don't actually want anyone to "shut up and go away." One of the people I'm thinking of, I suspect, is lashing out because of personal trauma. I don't need her agreement or apology or disappearance. Rather, I want her to think more clearly, strengthen her arguments, and avoid making things worse for the causes she ostensibly supports.
A good thought experiment is universal. There's absolutely no reason for me to write an article about how @angrychick69 needs to stfu. If I did that, the person would stfu, or not, and the world would continue as it did before.
There is, however, an a reason to invite readers to consider universal proposals (like, i.e., avoiding in-group language facilitates clarity). Does the reader agree with my assertion? And if so, is she acting in conflict with it anyway? And if so, can she explain why? And if she can explain why, maybe she's got something to teach _me_.
thanks, I appreciate this, it makes sense and is something I understand. I agree!
Regrettably I have never heard of the Principle of Charity, I only have a high school education.
Why don't you instead tell me when logical fallacies are good? When preaching to the people who already agree with you is effective, and what it accomplishes? Why you might use in-group language instead of opting for clarity? How ignorance is actually a great starting point?
Did something hit a nerve?
You preached to your choir and I did find it curious.
For those of us not on X can you speak plainly?
Clearly some issue and the way some specific people are addressing it is irritating you.
Not an X-specific problem by any means.
Which sentences don't seem plain to you?
These are my genuine questions for certain social media posters of late.
Fair enough...What are the names of the social media posters? Naming at least three would be interesting. What have they said?
Given the limitations of using Substack, I'll do each question individually
#1
If you want to make strides in a movement—any movement—you have to persuade certain people the cause is just. Who are these people? When you write an article or post a tweet, are you talking to them? If not, who are you talking to? What do you hope will happen?
“Who” are the "certain people" you refer to who are doing that? Can you give 2 specific examples?
It's my goal to make strides forward, toward the ends that I value.
What is the goal you value?
Perhaps my mistake has been to assume that others share this goal. Maybe they're just trying to make friends, or identify enemies, or let off a little steam. They're only human, after all, and humans get mean and irrational and short-sighted. But I must confess: I’d prefer if they stopped doing so publicly and in my team's name.
What are they doing publicly? Who is doing it publicly? Who are your "team"? Why do you feel you are in a "team"?
Posting on social media isn't activism, but it can certainly harm a cause if done unthoughtfully.
What is the "harm" you anticipate is being done? How will this unfold?
I believe I need the obligatory “social media presence” to promote my work—even if such is bad for the soul and takes away from time spent touching grass. I often limit short-form platforms to philosophical musings and favorite songs. But those attempts I make at persuasion, there or here, are made with an audience in mind.
If social media isn't effective social activism, why do feel presence on social media is obligatory? Why do you believe your writings qualify as "persuasion"?