Decades ago, Americans became acquainted with the term "copycat crime" and the potential effect of news reports on people who were already in a precarious psychological state. Later came the tragic period of teenage suicide clusters (not pacts, but successive instances within a single community). We learned to think about something called "social contagion" and to seek precautions against it. This was a perfectly progressive way to think. Everyone recognized at once that adolescents were the people most vulnerable to such a phenomenon.
Then came heavily-funded advocacy for (among items on the trans activist agenda) letting adolescents undergo a sexual transition without a waiting period. Progressive circles became uncritically trans-positive in all things. Suddenly, the subject of social contagion was taboo. It might take some of the wind out of activists' sails (and out of providers' incomes), and so it was stigmatized. We were supposed to believe, fantastically, that a young person's self-identification as trans (or non-binary) *couldn't* be due to a peer-group fad.
Now we're going to get some idea how many of those self-IDs were stable, how many were fleeting, and how much irreparable harm has been done by trans maximalism.
What I would like to know (and see almost no one talking about) is: what is the gap between people who will say they identify as transgender in a poll and people who, having persisted with a clinic for years, are consistently diagnosed as gender dysphoric and continue to the later stages of gender affirming care? And how does this vary over time? And does this relate to economic status and religiosity?
My family has had an ongoing debate about the topic. Is Transgender or non-Binary sexual identification a social contagion? Is it a statistical event in which polling is conducted under more rigorous standards the result of which is identification of the genuine prevalence in society, or is it changing as we speak due to some genetic, evolutionary or environmental influences? It would be fascinating to understand more completely.
I have yet to find a nature-vs-nurture debate in which the truth is not “both”. I agree it would be fascinating to know its dynamics, if anyone can remain apolitical enough to collect objective data about it.
So, Democrats, what this means (should you be interested in truth) is:
1. You weren’t liberating them..
2. You were creating them…
3. Because you are the taste makers…
4. You are the Influencers..
5. Your self conception is flawed…
6. You feel like your cultural capital is spent on liberation…
7. But it’s really spent on fad creation
Progressives - update your priors. You ARE the culture. You no longer liberate, you create.
Be more thoughtful (and less arrogant) about the genuine effect you have on our people through your art, music, and media.
Decades ago, Americans became acquainted with the term "copycat crime" and the potential effect of news reports on people who were already in a precarious psychological state. Later came the tragic period of teenage suicide clusters (not pacts, but successive instances within a single community). We learned to think about something called "social contagion" and to seek precautions against it. This was a perfectly progressive way to think. Everyone recognized at once that adolescents were the people most vulnerable to such a phenomenon.
Then came heavily-funded advocacy for (among items on the trans activist agenda) letting adolescents undergo a sexual transition without a waiting period. Progressive circles became uncritically trans-positive in all things. Suddenly, the subject of social contagion was taboo. It might take some of the wind out of activists' sails (and out of providers' incomes), and so it was stigmatized. We were supposed to believe, fantastically, that a young person's self-identification as trans (or non-binary) *couldn't* be due to a peer-group fad.
Now we're going to get some idea how many of those self-IDs were stable, how many were fleeting, and how much irreparable harm has been done by trans maximalism.
What I would like to know (and see almost no one talking about) is: what is the gap between people who will say they identify as transgender in a poll and people who, having persisted with a clinic for years, are consistently diagnosed as gender dysphoric and continue to the later stages of gender affirming care? And how does this vary over time? And does this relate to economic status and religiosity?
(thread continued here: https://substack.com/@robertpraetorius282272/note/c-169158931)
My family has had an ongoing debate about the topic. Is Transgender or non-Binary sexual identification a social contagion? Is it a statistical event in which polling is conducted under more rigorous standards the result of which is identification of the genuine prevalence in society, or is it changing as we speak due to some genetic, evolutionary or environmental influences? It would be fascinating to understand more completely.
I have yet to find a nature-vs-nurture debate in which the truth is not “both”. I agree it would be fascinating to know its dynamics, if anyone can remain apolitical enough to collect objective data about it.
I like to say: nature and nurture interact chaotically.
(using the term chaos in the mathematical sense)
Apolitically objective? Is that an oxymoron?
what’s inconsistent between “apolitical” and “objective”?
Tautological.