In a picture:
Pictured: the stereotypes associated with stories labelled ROGD vs transtrender.
There are two narratives that have become popular among people critical of the trans community, and they have some surface-level similarity that I think might prevent people from noticing how different they really are. Briefly, both claim that there is a social trend of people taking on transgender identities, but they differ a lot in how they describe the nature of this trend. I think there’s some serious issues with both narratives, but I think it’s worth writing an article that clearly distinguishes them before writing a response to either of them.
According to the transtrender narrative, there are a lot of normal girls who pick up transgender identities in order to get attention, but who aren’t gender dysphoric and aren’t seriously transitioning. People talking about “transtrenders” are usually mainly worried about them making “true trans people” look silly. They do sometimes worry about “transtrenders” engaging in medical transition, but in these cases, they generally consider regret to be inevitable.
Breakdown of issues pointed to by the transtrender narrative.
The ROGD narrative is different. Here, the idea still starts with relatively-normal girls who are in social groups that encourage taking on a trans identity. In the ROGD narrative, they’re also said to have a lot of mental health issues that they expect transition to fix. In addition, the followup is different: ROGDs start following the script that would be expected of trans men, discarding feminine behavior and putting a lot of energy into transition.
Breakdown of issues pointed to by the ROGD narrative.
The ROGD narrative isn’t worried about whether the trans community looks silly, but is instead worried about people ending up with expectations that transition will solve problems that it really doesn’t solve, that people who didn’t need transition will undergo medical interventions, and that the trans community might encourage suicide or self-harm.
In the above, I presented the narratives as being completely separate, but it can be far more continuous than that. There’s nothing contradictory in seeing these things as a continuum, as a progression, or as whatever else one might mix together.
Since the ROGD narrative is clearly the most alarming one, it’s also the one I intend to write a response to first. But that’ll have to wait until a later post.
Survey Anon's Gender Blog 
ROGD is a way to say gender incongruence. Transtrender is a cis or possibly gender-questioning person who conflates gender w/ anything irrelevant to the prestablished identities since the 80-90s.
LikeLike
Those are some strong assertions.
LikeLike
Sorry I wanted to write to you but replies to suvery anon, sorry!
Very sorry for the long post, when I find someone that actually has something important, clever, to say, I like to speak with them! If you only like object level arguments skip to the –
—
Sorry again
You are a very interesting person, trans but rationalist but in a more tangible sense of actually doing work and expounding upon arguments, most wannabe rationalists just have some bias for the simplest option, and yes Occam razor is a good idea, also sometimes science spends too much time on prestige and safety and protocol.
Yet when it comes to social issues it is important not to ignore the truth but to pause! Not because we reject it, but because the simplest explanation is not always the correct one. To put it simply too much emphasis in simplicity leaves with a hollow but seemingly sound theory that if it is drapes itself in the garments of rationality may appeals to “reductionists”
But you would program symbolic integration with only 1 bit of memory and 2 instructions, reductive ones.
I hope that you understand that the reason why some many people in the liberal sphere appear to be naive is not because they are, but because they themselves have seen how convincing at the time to someone who always demands, simple, and therefore seemingly reductive theories, to be not only false, but to be lead by false actors. Humans are complicated.
For example if you know nothing about evolution, but hear creationist propaganda about false fossils, if you are fair and rational you will feel a tug to update evolution to less likely.
This is to be a child, yet once you study evolution, just the same way that confusion clears away when you study quantum mechanics, mathematically, you are boggled, and realize that you cannot concede the battle to every simplicity, nor argue every falsity, not every enemy is a hydra, to be cut down by truth, some people are not only bad faith but outright exploitative of the rational community, they rely in fear and self-hatred for a goal that in their minds is wrong.
And when it comes to judging people it is better to wait!
If you still simple theory are not merely a preference but some overwhelming must, and this I feel is like a very bad faith take on what actual Bayesianism is, if not skip my dumb tangent:
To many AGP vs HSTS seems like a good explanation as it reduces,
For example, contrary to the weird ideas about physics of lesswrong you cannot deduce GR from a falling apple, this skips group theory (like the Bargmann group)and the fact that Newtons’ theory are already relative! But supposing that there is fixed speed is weird, you might handwave it by saying that of course instant non contact forces are weird(why? are we assuming some computing model here? why?) but it is not obvious c should be fixed, it is not obvious how to compactify many dimensions, or in QM why the same operator equation is valid, why the universe likes the action so much. There are so many simple models, infinite, with very close complexity , but simple is not obvious! This is why we guess and build experiments and fumble!
–For a community that loves the idea of reductionist models you should read Savic studies on the brain, she starts with Blanchard terms, saying that if you account for sexuality, ie attracted to male or female, and the for sex, the femininity of trans woman not attracted to men, to disappear.
So Ivanka Savic has done many brain studies, is clearly not afraid to go against the party line yet curiously though she has never found commonalities between female brains, regardless or the orientation, and what you call AGP, she had found commonality between what you call AGP and HSTS brains, thus giving destroying one of Bailey’s original contentions. After all people have come to see gay as natural, as a sexual orientation, and AGP as some kind of ugliness.
Curiously as you probably know Blanchard admits that “AGP” is better seen as a sexual orientation! It is funny because it contradicts Bailey’s claims in his book, and that of many HSTS, as “AGP” as not true trans. (Ithink Bailey wants to portrary both HSTS and AGPs as not the way things should be while Blanchard emphasizes more the “evilness” of AGPs)
The claims go,
1.
That AGP has masculine interests(this is just Simon Barren-Cohen theory of autism regurgitated and ignores wholly female autism, where ironically it is not about non-people interest, but the lacking theory of mind, go talk to functioning cis straight autistic women and see they like doing people stuff , but they do not understand the minds of other persons as easily!, like the original Barre-Cohen theory!), So I am not denying that AGP are more aggressive, competitive or object interested, but so what? This are only slight shifts in standard deviations. But trans women, even AGPs, are not puzzle obsessed raping heavy brow puzzle solvers. The curves overlap
2. AGPs realize later they are trans, actually this was later corrected as it turnst out that many AGPs had female fantasies earlier than thought, so the goal post was moved.
The fact this impacts in appearance has more to do with current technology and luck than anything else.
3. Only meta-attraction(I guess it is natural to be attracted to idea of putting flesh tubes inside flesh holes, but to be meta-attracted is bad? Arguments from nature are so weird, because natura has counterexamples for all the world silly ideas)
4. Fianlly the idea is made in the book that this means that AGPs are only following a thrill, but a HSTS is like a true trans.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21094885/
Besides this being some really big red flag indicating bias the latest Savic studies, I cannot bother to google the other one,(it is also about similarities in brain structures found in AGPs and HSTS but not in any other group), it also says that those similarities are related to body image! So HSTS is not merely super gay men looking for an easier hook up,nor are AGPs fetishists, btw the study if I remember correctly mentioned this may not be merely a result of trans women obssessing over their bodies, but I do not remember, sorry!
The arguments against Blanchard et al. seem weak to a rationalists, as Bailey’s questions about AGP are more pointed and they rely on measurement of arousal.
But even if we ignore that sometimes sexuality is weird and a boner may popup in a fully hetero man as he watches gay person, cause maybe they imagined a girl, or maybe saw the same closet a girlfriend has, it is very imprecise, but more to the point the question int he AGP questionnaires fail to accomplish the delicate task of not loading the question, while avoid a dishonest answer.
To me Savic studies if replicated, and if confirmed that there is a biological basis, maybe innate, in both AGPs and HSTS, even pre-everything, say you do an MRI of all Iceland boys, and the see which one becomes trans, it would really be the final nail in the coffin to Blanchardism
But more tot he point Hsu seems to realize how stuck their version of sexology is, how vague the target location error is, he seems to genuinely want to do science.
It is an intersting question, that should not be stigmatized, but why does sexualiy sometimes turns inwards. And to real science! Are there genes, neurotrasmitters, tracts, computer models that can explain it?
Also as much as Blanchard is lauded and the trans avocates are accused of bias he really has shot his rep, from a scientific point
He does stigmatize trans people, especially “AGPs” but as he recognized it not a fetish but an alternative sexual orientation, what is the basis?, Blanchard is gay, Bailey is happy to do this marginalization though, providing the veneer of respectable ideas to very conservative talking points.
He still calls it a fetish unless he is speaking scientifically or when pressed.
The real thing that reveals his lack of integrity is the ROGD study, that study is pathetic, not even worth the words, awful methodologies, and lack of relevance or a proven mechanism that is not weird Freudian literature about hysteria panics or whatever.
The model could have contributed to our understanding of trans women, even trans men.
So to make my final point, why are they ignored? Contrary to Blanchard ideas, cis straight, perfectly neurotypical, women have fetishes, not as pronounced, and most importatnly they are not some subset of masochism or submission, some cis women like for example furries, even to become furries per se, not as some praise kink or secret degradation. The research is so outdated and weird to the point that whenever the topic is mentioned I guess Blanchard suppossed the cis women are confused or lying?
Modern sexology is like this not out of wokeness, but from listening to voices that were never heard.
I ramble like this because I think it important to note that the edgy transphobia is not really scientific, or “lesswrong rational”. Not all explanations are so dull and simple. But so many trans women drown in self hatred for the AGP thing, and there is already enough hatred and dysphoria in this world.
LikeLike
“Sorry I wanted to write to you but replies to suvery anon, sorry!”
I am Survey Anon.
“I hope that you understand that the reason why some many people in the liberal sphere appear to be naive is not because they are, but because they themselves have seen how convincing at the time to someone who always demands, simple, and therefore seemingly reductive theories, to be not only false, but to be lead by false actors.”
Blanchardians are definitely frauds, but that doesn’t mean the correct theory isn’t similar to theirs.
“To many AGP vs HSTS seems like a good explanation as it reduces,”
I think Blanchardians put overly much weight on simplicity and reductionism, and not enough weight on getting lots of evidence.
“For a community that loves the idea of reductionist models you should read Savic studies on the brain”
My understanding is that small studies at the intersection of psychology and neurology basically never work out when performed better. Do we have any reason to think otherwise for Savic’s studies?
“So Ivanka Savic has done many brain studies, is clearly not afraid to go against the party line yet curiously though she has never found commonalities between female brains, regardless or the orientation, and what you call AGP, she had found commonality between what you call AGP and HSTS brains”
I think she has only studied AGPTSs, not AGPs?
“After all people have come to see gay as natural, as a sexual orientation, and AGP as some kind of ugliness.”
These people seem confused/biased. Do you agree with them? If not, it seems irrelevant to bring them up, and if you do agree with them, it seems like you could just state your personal opinion instead of appealing to “people”.
“1. That AGP has masculine interests(this is just Simon Barren-Cohen theory of autism regurgitated”
Simon Baron-Cohen’s theory of autism is wrong, but that doesn’t mean that there aren’t sex differences in technical interests. Sex differences in technical interests are the part of the theory that is correct, and SBC’s error is in equating this with autism or rule-oriented drives.
“So I am not denying that AGP are more aggressive, competitive or object interested,”
A question is, more than what? AGPs are psychologically similar to straight men. The only way you would call them “more” aggressive/object-interested/etc. is if you compare them to some other group than straight men, such as HSTSs or to cis women. But that’s an unnatural comparison group insofar as AGPs have nothing to do with either group.
AGPTSs could maybe be compared. Though AGPTSs appear to be more psychologically feminine than cis men, so there’s some unaccounted-for shenanigans there.
“but so what? This are only slight shifts in standard deviations. But trans women, even AGPs, are not puzzle obsessed raping heavy brow puzzle solvers. The curves overlap”
I usually study etiology rather than policy, but in terms of policy there actually is an answer to the “but so what?” question, described here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/RxxqPH3WffQv6ESxj/blanchard-s-dangerous-idea-and-the-plight-of-the-lucid#D4GbggYoChTGjHoyW
“2. AGPs realize later they are trans, actually this was later corrected as it turnst out that many AGPs had female fantasies earlier than thought, so the goal post was moved.”
Not sure what back and forth discourse you are referring to here.
Doesn’t seem super important tbh. But I guess feel encouraged to quote it.
“3. Only meta-attraction”
Not sure what you are getting at with this.
“4. Fianlly the idea is made in the book that this means that AGPs are only following a thrill, but a HSTS is like a true trans.”
Did you even read Bailey’s book?
“The arguments against Blanchard et al. seem weak to a rationalists, as Bailey’s questions about AGP are more pointed and they rely on measurement of arousal.
But even if we ignore that sometimes sexuality is weird and a boner may popup in a fully hetero man as he watches gay person, cause maybe they imagined a girl, or maybe saw the same closet a girlfriend has, it is very imprecise, but more to the point the question int he AGP questionnaires fail to accomplish the delicate task of not loading the question, while avoid a dishonest answer.”
This feels like it is addressing some sort of insider baseball thing.
By “Bailey’s questions about AGP”, do you mean the classification algorithm in his book?
“But more tot he point Hsu seems to realize how stuck their version of sexology is, how vague the target location error is, he seems to genuinely want to do science.”
Kevin Hsu seems to be a big fan of Michael Bailey and seems to really strongly dislike me. Long-term this probably means he’s going to go the path of Bailey rather than the path of me.
“So to make my final point, why are they ignored? Contrary to Blanchard ideas, cis straight, perfectly neurotypical, women have fetishes, not as pronounced, and most importatnly they are not some subset of masochism or submission, some cis women like for example furries, even to become furries per se, not as some praise kink or secret degradation. The research is so outdated and weird to the point that whenever the topic is mentioned I guess Blanchard suppossed the cis women are confused or lying?”
Yeah I mean the female paraphilia denial is just stupid AFAICT.
LikeLike
I can’t locate this ‘later’ post, but I’m very interested in reading it… Anyone know how to find it, if it was ever posted?
LikeLike
Not sure which post I had in mind. Not even sure I wrote one.
I hope to write one soon, but my views have changed a bunch since I wrote this one.
LikeLike