Why Sabine Hossenfelder's video on transgender teens is misleading
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 июл 2024
- Sources: docs.google.com/document/d/1z...
0:00 0: Introduction
5:37 1: Gender-Affirming Care
11:46 2: Rapid-Onset Gender Dysphoria
17:11 2b: Correlation and Causation
24:29 3: "Vaccines cause Autism" pseudo-science
29:49 4: Special Scrutiny
40:40 5: Follow-up ROGD papers
47:25 6: Falsifiability
50:03 7: Conclusion
A physicist critiquing a physicist's work... in gender studies.
are you questioning the validity of calling out anti-trans disinformation?
Or just pointing how unexpected this situation is
@@miriampublius4767 what do you mean transgender problem?
@@miriampublius4767 True
@@miriampublius4767 lmao
I was equally disappointed with Sabine's video on autism. A bunch of accurate facts mixed in with inaccurate/obsolete info, followed by a rant about how people are being mean to Autism Speaks, an organization that has supported, among other things, therapies that claim to cure autism, and eugenics.
I usually love her videos, yet felt a bit uncertain about this one. Kudos to the yt algorithm for serving me your video. Very interesting, good scientific discussion.
I really hope Sabine will adress this criticism and maybe correct her statements or elaborate on what lead her to ignore certain studies, ...
@@billy-raysanguine2029 (just to be clear, I'm not eigenchris 😅)
@@lilium724 yeet I accidentally commented on your comment - this was intended for the main video 🙈😂
Exactly my thoughts. I like Sabine's videos almost always, but this one and the autism one really showed much less scholarship than most of her videos. It really doesn't take much work to find more than just surface level details about Autism Speaks.
The Autism Speaks bit struck me as Sabine looking up "Autism Speaks controversy" or something, and finding a bit about the most recent thing people had complained about, and walked away thinking "this isn't really an appropriate reaction."
My takeaway was that Sabine didn't really do the digging she would've needed, probably because it was so tertiary to the video.
Sabine has fallen prey to "I know a lot about [complicated subject]. I will now present myself as an expert on totally unrelated subjects." I've kind of stopped watching her stuff after she started presenting her opinions on non-physics subjects as facts.
acollierastro? She talks about this in a recent video about michio kaku
This is natural. When someone has finished talking all he knows, he will start to talk about what he doesn’t know. Kind of the Peter principle.
@@johnsnow8591i love this
Same with this channel
Yep
She now thinks she is a renaissance type universal genius who is an expert on every branch of human knowledge. 😂
Error at 4:37 - I wrote Massachusetts instead of Mississippi.
I'm going to use this pinned post to address some concerns.
A number of people have said they would like to see a randomized clinical trial (single blind or double blind) involving puberty blockers and hormones. There are both practical and ethical issues involved with randomized clinical trials and gender-affirming care. On the practical side, long-term use of puberty blockers or hormone replacement will have pretty obvious physical effects on the body, so most participants will be able to tell which group they end it up in, destroying the randomness of the trail.
On the ethical side, denying treatment to people who want it for long periods of time is not ethical. While part of me understands desiring this gold-standard level of evidence, you also have to understand that this would involve people voluntarily NOT getting treatment *on purpose* for a time-sensitive problem (again, natural puberty is irreversible, and suicidal thoughts are elevated in trans kids/teens). Randomized clinical trials are not always an ethical option in medicine because of issues like this. While the studies I've shown in this video are not as rock solid as a randomized clinical trial, they should still be counted as evidence, even if they are a weaker form of evidence.
More recently, there was a 3-month randomized trial on 64 trans adults performed in the paper linked below, which shows HRT decreases depression and suicidal ideation compared to placebo. They only used adults who were waiting in line for treatment anyway. jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2809058?widget=personalizedcontent&previousarticle=0
Also, at 11:28, I was a bit careless with how I phrased things compared to what the paper says. The original quote from the paper's "Discussion" section regarding the 2-3 fold increase is as follows: "Among youths who did not initiate PBs or GAHs, we observed that depressive symptoms and suicidality were 2-fold to 3-fold higher than baseline levels at 3 and 6 months of follow-up, respectively. Our study results suggest that risks of depression and suicidality may be mitigated with receipt of gender-affirming medications in the context of a multidisciplinary care clinic over the relatively short time frame of 1 year." Source [11] is here: jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2789423 (Tables are in a separate PDF file in the "supplemental content" section.)
There is more at stake than you seem to realize if you turn out to be wrong about this issue. Entertain the following scenario: Policy is speedily made on what is admittedly a weak form of evidence and hormone blockers are rolled out to tens or even hundreds of thousands of children across the west. Only for it to turn out that a large portion of them were misguided due to social contagion and combinations of mental issues, and that hormone blockers were never appropriate for them. Then imagine that there are permanent and irreversible adverse effects from long term use of puberty blockers in children that we do not know of due to the lack of proper long term studies. There is a _very_ real possibility that the resulting backlash and media disaster would be the tipping point for LGBT acceptance in the west. Given that the progress made by the movement is already coming undone in large parts of the US and that the demographics of Europe is changing towards being more conservative and religious due to immigration, do you think it is wise to make this gamble?
That is hyper specific scenario that relies on various assumptions
@nochill count the number of assumptions in your statement. Sure, if we alloe every single assumption to be correct, then, even with all that, it _might_ be a tipping point that could change opinion. I'll ask the inverse, can we afford to gamble on your highly specific scenario coming perfectly true when we have all this evidence for what's actually happening around us right now? What kind of a chance is that, how much do we have to lose? I can imagine infinite scenarios that support my chosen conclusion. To be persuasive you have to include convincing evidence for your argument like eigenchris does in this video. Do you have that?
@@deusola911 This is not only not speculation, it has already begun. The following is a quote from the class-action lawsuit being prepared against the recently shut down Tavistock gender clinic in the UK: "Children and young adolescents were rushed into treatment without the appropriate therapy and involvement of the right clinicians, meaning that they were misdiagnosed and started on a treatment pathway that was not right for them. These children have suffered life-changing and, in some cases, irreversible effects of the treatment they received.". There are currently around a _thousand_ families involved. How do you think the ensuing media circus will affect an already increasingly LGBT-hesitant population once the lawsuit begins? Now multiply that by ten or by a hundred if this dodgy medical policy is normalized.
@@eqwerewrqwerqre It has already begun. See my response to deusola911. I also feel obligated to remind you that the LGBT acceptance rates among young people are already declining at an alarming rate.
Keeping one's sources behind a paywall is incredibly scammy behaviour for a science communicator. I can't fathom how she could justify that other than revealing her sources being detrimental to her credibility.
Very bizarre too. It is expected of anyone in the scientific community to be very careful with the sources they cite and, of course, to show them! I cannot understand in any way why she would pay-wall that; besides "scammy", it is downright odd, confusing, and foolish.
one reason being that she started posting 2 videos per week and now has a script and a team of writers which is a lot of science to cite.
For some sources and viewers this actually amounts to a double paywall, because outside of academia, you rarely have "free" (i.e. paid by some other mechanism) access to journals
@@RubALamp Funny this is usually the tactic of 'scientists' she's trying to debunk, ie putting their papers behind paywall (which is scammy by itself)
Wanting to monetise is one thing but she's presenting herself as someone who's trying to keep em honest openly debating the status quo. That comes off as hypocrisy
@@carlosgaspar8447 please.. you just made it up. Anton Petrov does videos every day and doesn't put the sources behind paywall.
I‘m glad you didn’t put your sources behind a Patreon paywall unlike a certain person who isn’t trying to “push a certain political agenda”
Jimmy uses the censorship on RUclips to sell private content just like the rest of 'em. A creator with a censored platform, especially one that can still post, has the censors as a marketing partner.
Who do you mean?
@@luudestRebecca Watson, I think.
@@weirdlyspecific302 Not sure if you're being sarcastic.
@@luudest Sabine Hossenfelder does that
This is quite a surprise for me as I usually see you making science and math videos. Then again, glad to see someone with honest objectivity and moral fairness approaching this subject. Especially when people have polarized this subject when it doesn’t even have to be at all. Also a surprise learning that you are bisexual. Best of luck to you.
"as I usually see you making science and math videos"
Well, a lot of this is science too, just psychology rather than physics.
thank you for running through this
“Yes! I am absolutely sure that teenagers decide to undergo the potentially life threatening dangers of trans bigotry for a fad! I’m so sure that I made it so you have to pay me money to check if my sources are BS!”
- Sabine I-already-forgot-her-name, 2023
@@Wheels36H3WM [citation needed]
@@Wheels36H3WM [citation needed]
36:40 this kind of special scrutiny can even be turned into an analogy for theories in physics, as a theory becomes agreed upon by other physicists the more it is accepted within the scientific community and so becomes increasingly more established and cited.
Thank you for this video. A surprise, but a welcome one. I wish that the "Michio Kaku disease" of "i'm good in one field, so I'm gonna pretend to be an expert in all the other fields" won't spread further than Sabine, especially when it comes to a topic as delicate as this
He literally does the exact same thing as Sabine.
@@hellothere-rr7kc Well, someone has to do damage control.
@@hellothere-rr7kc I would argue that a one-off video by a member of the LGBT community correcting misinformation is still better than a white cishet lady, well, spreading misinformation boldly... and it's not the first time either, her autism video is also lackluster.
@@hellothere-rr7kc Oh come on, that guy is a dick! Sabine has just ventured off piste.
wait what has kaku been doing? i haven’t caught up at all sjfjdk pls fill me in
I doubt this will be seen because I just found this, but I wanted to post here my response to Hossenfelder's video (which I posted there as well). It is as follows:
Hossenfelder is guilty - and this is not the first time - of confirmation bias and quote mining.
One example to make the point: In discussing the impact of puberty blockers on mental health, she highlighted a part of a survey study that suggests that results that did find a benefit may be unreliable and/or based on bias. The *very* *next* *sentence* of that same survey - visible on the screen at the same time, so she can't say she didn't see it - says it is "plausible" that the lack of improvement from baseline scores is due to the *absence* of the increased stress that would result from going through puberty. That is, the benefit of puberty blockers related to stress lies not in reducing existing stress but in avoiding experiencing more - which. bluntly, is exactly what you should have expected all along.
In fact, the study by de Vries et. al., 2011, the link visible on the screen with the above-referenced quote, says a primary purpose of puberty blockers is just that: "to relieve the suffering caused by the development of secondary sex characteristics." For her to quote the first sentence of the paragraph she did while ignoring the rest is dishonest.
Overall, she is simply unpersuasive.
Hey everyone, "surgical regret" means that the patient wanted *BETTER* surgical results, _not_ that they didn't want surgery.
Nonetheless it definitely exists
Interesting. I was not aware of that aspect.
@@narfwhals7843 Medicine has its own technical jargon, which uses a lot of common words with a completely different meaning than how the words are commonly understood. Like "negative feedback" doesn't mean something is bad, it means something was removed. Psychology is also terrible for using common words in technical ways, which are completely misunderstood by anyone who only knows the common meaning of the word. Physics has a few words like that too, I guess. (Like "work")
Anyway, you can't get surgery "on accident". The fear mongers using this statistic in their campaign to eliminate trans people from society, are trying to pass this off like people are somehow getting two letters of recommendation from a psychiatrist and psychologist after two years of therapy, and hormones, and USD70,000 in cash unless they spend a year trying to get health insurance to pay for surgery... on accident. Every surgeon will interview you first, hand you a giant stack of paper that tells you very explicitly exactly what the surgery does, and has you sign multiple legal documents stating that you know what you are doing. Every surgeon's schedule is completely full, and it can take years to even get this consultation appointment, and then several more years to actually be scheduled for surgery. (You also must maintain a non-obese BMI, and be HIV negative and stuff too.)
Anyway, nobody is waking up from surgery and going: "oops!"
The entire system is setup to prevent you from having surgery. You need to fight the system every step of the way.
(There are a lot of trans people who want surgery, and haven't been able to get it. And bigots are passing laws to make surgeries illegal with the excuse "to save the children" or "to save those poor delusional trans people from "regret"", as if they actually gave a fuck about the welfare of transgender people. They want transgender people to not exist. That is their goal.)
@@narfwhals7843 Oh, I should mention, there was someone claiming claiming that they were forced into having surgery by horrible doctors blah blah or something, and upon investigation it turned out to be a scam. (Scamming bigots is a very lucrative business, unfortunately it's unethical because makes bigots hate even more, and hurts whatever minority group is being lied about.) (There's a reason this stuff is frequently mixed with conspiracy theories.)
Thank you for expressing what I'd detected but couldn't put into words. I'd felt Sabine had a foregone conclusion in her video. The false middle ground fallacy was what I was thinking
To be honest really dont like sabine hossenfelder, her critique (for example on particle physics) may be valid but the way she says things gives the impression to the audience that researchers in the field are somehow stupid and aren't considering other approaches to particle physics, which is absolutely not true. The fact that science is so open to new ideas and critique is the reason why she is allowed to say these things without anyone stopping her.
when do we get the next spinor video? :-)
Someday
I was, after watching the Sabine video, unconvinced that her conclusions were in alignment with the rest of the presentation. I didn't know why, but it seemed overly generous to the Littman paper. Your presentation was much more in depth and helped me get a better understanding. I did read some more on the controversy about the updates to the papers in the more right-wing media. That was an incredibly uncomfortable read. Thanks for filling my gaps in understanding!
I wonder if Hossenfelder has fallen prey to a lesser version of the Nobel disease, believing that being a lauded expert in one field means she automatically understands all the intricacies all scientific fields and all social issues. (The only question now is, if Phil Mason makes a video on this, if he'll agree with her premise _or_ use her video to further push his belief that "women are just bad at science.")
Knowing that there are definitely trans people, it may be better if folks would discuss what accommodations can be made and which expectations of such are reasonable. However, I understand that gender and sexuality are emotional - even primal - issues for many people and societies and why there is so much resistance to the idea. Fortunately the human race seems capable of overcoming many previous "visceral truths," even if not always as completely as hoped.
physicists are especially prone to this fallacy im afraid
I have found a rare comment.
Especially since she understands herself not only to be a physicist, but also a "philosopher", so she must be qualified to speak on all social questions, I guess. Despite her clearly not engaging with what any philosophers have to say about sexuality and gender (hence her relatively rudimentary "definition" of sex and gender, as far as the standard for social science goes).
I really like Sabine in the physics realm. But I totally agree with your comment.
@@professionallabelmaker744 oh lord, she really is far far away from being a philosopher. she recently was talking with swiss philosopher Yves Bossart and did behave like a 9 years old.
Good video.
Where is the 31c and related sources?
I just added [31c], [31d], and [31e] to the document. I apologize for missing those. Thanks for pointing that out!
@@eigenchris no problem, thanks
Where's the link on original video?
It's source [1] in the source document in the description.
I feel like a good metric for determining rates of ROGD would be to look at detransition rates, especially in about a decade or so. If it's true that being trans is a fad among certain circles, we should be able to expect a large spike in detransitions after a certain delay (such as the amount of time it would take for people's life situation, social circle, and mental health situation to become completely different). Of course, with that hypothesis, only time will tell.
That would be a pretty good way of measuring the existence of ROGD. But reminder that the theory itself was posited by people who produced a non-peer-reviewed, unscientific report, focused on anectode only. It's the equivalent of the MMR causes autism - that's how bad the "science" was.
Because we have had gender-affirming surgeries for at least 80-100 years? However most of the data and people involved were killed in the holocaust (Weinmar Germany was an epicentre of transgender research).
So realistically we've had recoverable data since the 60s or 70s, for about as long as we've had birth control (as HRT medications involve taking common birth control/period medicine). That's a good 60 years for a small population of about a couple thousand in the anglosphere/Europe to gather data from.
Studies have actually conducted research on these people in terms of their regret rate, and found that the regret rate has either lowered (most likely because the surgeries are less traumatic to the body), or stayed relatively the same over the last 60 years. And this regret rate has always been well below the medical average.
Currently surgical regret rates remain at around 1%, and that's been the case for the last decade. Usually, and still now, most people wait until your mid-late 20s to get permanent SRS, whereas most new HRT users start at 16-25. After a few years we still have not seen an increase in regret rates for those procedures either.
EDIT: I might've mischaracterised a bit of my information so I'll get into a more detail to prevent the hate comments from straw-manning me, and for better rigor in general.
The detransition rate and the rate of regret are different for HRT, because it is somewhat reversible. Some, in fact, most people detransition because of reasons that are different to regret.
The rate of detransition for HRT is anywhere between 2% and 10%, and has been rising. However it is important to note that this is around the average level for all permanent surgical procedures both cosmetic and medical - and HRT isn't even surgery. A majority of detransitioners do not actually do it out of regret. These are the most common reasons for regret, taking up anywhere between 85% and 99% of the pie:
- Can't afford the medicine/lost access to it
- Experiencing regular bigotry
- Fear or experience of hate crimes and violence
- Lack of ability to find a romantic partner
- Social pressure from family or friends
- It didn't alleviate a still existing gender dysphoria
- Death
Obviously it's reasonable to say that these situations shouldn't count to the total amount of people who'd experience ROGS. If we cut them out and focus in on HRT users who stopped primarily because they realised they weren't trans, we get under 1%. The same regret rate as SRS. And this number for HRT has also stayed static or shrunk as opposed to detrans rates in general.
@@oliviax727 "Sapolsky's view that "on average" the sexually dimorphic parts of the brain show the opposite trend in those trans individuals who report always having felt themselves to be the other gender, but there's a lot to unpack there. The first thing to note is the "on average", which immediately means that some will show very little difference from their "assigned gender", while others will show more. Then there's the question - as he mentioned someone hypothesizing - of whether those who only "discover" they are trans in their teenage years, or as they approach puberty or adolescence, are simply having a delayed response, or - as has been asserted several times in the field - might be responding to social contagion, or a convenient way to avoid the fallout of childhood trauma, of abuse or neglect, or fears of one's expected gender roles in future, or internalized homophobia in cases of self-suppressed homosexual feelings, of simple teenage rebelliousness, etc., etc.
Then there remains the question of what these sexually dimorphic brain regions represent, in anyone. If we learn to play a musical instrument, our brain changes. If we get more or less exercise, or change diet, or join a book group - everything we do has some effect on the structure of our brain. So it follows that those regional differences in the sexes might correspond functionally - might be causally related to - all manner of thoughts, feelings and behaviours that we associate with the sexes. Indeed it seems obvious they will. Sapolsky criticised the literature from the 50s in which aberrant behaviour in females meant not wanting to play with dolls. Silly old sexist nonsense. But it follows that if these kinds of behaviours - which we now consider sexual stereotypes, and regarding which we now encourage freedom of sexual expression - correspond with the sexual dimorphism of the brain regions mentioned, then the "gendered brain" might not indicate, as one student put it, "being in the wrong body", but merely having one particular constellation of behaviours that either sex ought to be able to express. Indeed, interviews with trans individuals often include such stereotypes, which they consider indicators of their "wrong body", rather than thinking "I'm a tomboy" or "I'm a sensitive kind of guy".
This is extremely important, because we know that there are rising numbers of transitioners in the West (particularly the USA), and rising numbers of detransitioners criticising the one-size-fits-all, so-called "affirmative care" model, which took their self-reports of feeling odd in their social role and stuck them on puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones, and perhaps surgical procedures, which they now bitterly regret and see as completely erroneous. Those procedures often lead to a range of physical and psychological distress that could have been avoided, including sterility.
We also know from several other cases that social contagion is a real phenomenon and affects in particular pre-pubescent girls. We know that our frontal cortex takes twenty-odd years to come fully on line, the part of our brain that finds compromises and rational solutions to things that disturb our monolithic emotions without its sober cogitation. We know that its functioning is even more widly confused during puberty - younger children make better decisions than teenagers! All this should give us great caution about allowing private medical companies to trade in gender transition procedures without proper assessment of other possible routes. It should stop us hearing "brains are gendered, and trans brains are opposite-gendered; and the brain is the best judge of who we are" and thinking that's cleared up the gender debate and it's time to reach for the pills or the knife. A large percentage of "trans" kids grow up through puberty (if allowed to) to recognise they were going through a phase, and they're happy in their biological sex. A significant number turn out to be gay. So running down the trans route too fast, in some cases, seems to be a kind of dystopian, radical conversion therapy - for gay people, turning them into pseudo-straight people, by pretending they're the other sex."
´"Human bodies have evolved to go through the sexual puberty that corresponds to their biological sex. There is no such thing as the wrong puberty. There is puberty (the thing your body is built to do) and there are degrees of artificial sterility that can be inflicted on it."
"You pretend you know sex is different from gender, but really you imagine the person has some kind of sexed soul that's the opposite (or some other condition) from their physical sex. And you repeat obvious lies endlessly, like nobody is going to get surgery before they're 18 - research how many double mastectomies were done in the last few years on girls (GIRLS, the ones with breasts) at 14 and 15 and 16, even many at 13 years old.
And your utter bs that transition surgery is one of the most successful medical procedures ever. The patient is butchered. They very often have incontinence problems. They spend inordinate amounts of money trying to get the "complications" sorted, lining the pockets of surgeons, but often getting nowhere nearer a healthy body, and nowhere near the image of themselves they were aiming at. A high proportion continue to have mental health problems that were not sorted out, because the exploratory therapy you imagine happens doesn't, and almost all therapists involved feel brow-beaten into affirming the gender the person is supposedly "exploring" (often at risk of losing their job, or being attacked by a trans mob). And those mental health problems are increased by living a lie - pretending, trying to pass as the opposite sex, and feigning conditions like "a gay trans man" or "a trans lesbian".
The contrast with homosexual rights is stark, and vast numbers of gays and lesbians are disavowing the trans nonsense, seeing much of it as gay conversion therapy by stealth."
"It is insane to suggest that mental health problems are somehow available to be dealt with by a young person AFTER they have declared themselves to be a different sex ("gender" is just smoke up your ass) from their biologial sex, and added all the complications of transition!
We have masses of evidence that transition is seen as the magic silver bullet that will solve a young person's problems, only to find that after going down that route they still have all the same issues they did before, only now they're obsessed by how well they're doing with their transition, how well they pass, how they're coping with the side-effects of medication, planning where this journey is going to end, will they have surgery and when, how are they being accepted or not by their peers, their family, the rest of society.
It is insane to assess someone with any mental health problem and, before helping them discover the root of those problems and heal from them, dumping transition procedures on them! I am trained in therapeutic counselling and practised counselling for a decade, so I know what I'm talking about. Until the TRA Critical Study fruitloops got hold of our culture by the throat, no therapist would countenance doing such a stupid thing.
Now even the BACP is being infiltrated by them. Individuals like you I just feel compassion for, pity, because you've been hoodwinked, your delusions have been accepted as truths and amplified. Your delusion that you are somehow "female" despite clearly being male, is wrong and stupid and you should have been corrected. There is no blame in that (from me - I know other GCs can be cruel because they don't understand the psychological pressures on every one of us and why we choose to do the things we do).
You massively underestimate the regret, for example, because you don't take into account the enormous resistance someone feels when they contemplate desistance or detransition, yet the evidence is out there. Follow the work of Eliza Mondegreen, for instance. You will probably baulk at the idea, because she's dubbed a hateful transphobe, but she clearly is not, she's a caring, concerned and highly intelligent student of the phenomenon, particularly focusing on the psychological and social pressures on people transitioning and detransitioning.
She shows that the social media where gender-questioning youth go radicalizes them - it sucks them in. They are told that to be at all gender questioning (which most young people go through as part of growing towards puberty) means you ARE "trans". They are schooled in how to play the system to convince medics and told that their parents must accept their gender identity or be rejected. They're love bombed, invited into their sparkly trans family of people who don't know them from Adam (or Eve), and any doubts they have are twisted into signs of "internalized transphobia". If all this is new to you, it's because you've not been following the phenomenon in an unbiased fashion, and it's time you began reading the GC material. Having "hundreds of trans friends" is a source of bias, it doesn't make you an expert on trans. There is, in fact, no such thing as "being trans" - as far as we know, there is no such physiological condition - there is merely thinking you are, or trying to appear like, the opposite sex. You will never know what an actual human female feels like, or deal with any of their actual lived experiences in this world, and nor will I. Sorry if that all sounds harsh, but you insisted you needed to continue putting out your incorrect propaganda, and I felt the need to push back against it."
@@ambientjohnny damn son
a study which takes online survey as a valid basis lol
But most studies on this topic, for or against, seem to be based on online surveys. It seems obvious why.
@@ciobalina7445 regardless of the topic, I can't take such study or research seriously. Let alone having policies based on them.
@@memish26237131903 I understand your point of view. Even so, I think it's difficult to get actual trans people to answer these physically, in a room, especially since in the past it was such a sensitive issue. But yes, most of them are online and you are right, they cannot be verified. Anybody can answer.
I have mixed feelings about this. That's because in the first few years the person may feel that transitioning is starting, things will improve etc., so they have an euphoric feeling. There is a sense of hope, so of course you are happier. Afterwards, when reality sets in, this may change. I just don't get how logically one could feel better in their body when you undergo surgeries that literally may leave your body in a worse state than before + with pain and possibility of various medical complications. These people already have issues with their body. It seems so dependent on luck,on whether you will look attractive/ok afterwards and if your life turns out ok, without complications.
I think you need at least 5-10 years for reality to set in. I want to see actual studies with ALL the people who start transitioning and what happened after 10-15-20 years. There was one study where basically they lost touch/didn't include half of the people they started with because during the process some stopped earlier. Why?! At the same time, there are plenty of trans people who seem happy with their choice. It seems to be about luck.
that is subjective I say 100% incorrect@@ciobalina7445
online survey can be used, but there are so much care and delicateness to ensure the data is actually usable.
That ROGD paper? You are right: that…was not it. It solicited opinions from a source that is very highly likely to have had an adverse bias to the premise and simply took those opinions *prima facie* with zero scrutiny and made an entire hypothesis from that.
There is bad science and recklessness and then there is *that* .
I might've missed it, but do you cover any other desistence studies in the video regarding trans-questioning teens that don't get gender-affirming care that specifically don't identify as trans afterwards? The study at 33:30 (source 7) seems to only cover people that do identify as trans. Only 89 participants getting puberty seems like a small sample size to compare to the 20k other participants also, though I don't know whether to chalk that up to the smallness of the trans population, nor how it would effect their results.
The study in [7] is only about people who identify as transgender, yes. Not all transgender people necessarily want puberty blockers, so I think it's better to compare the 89 against the total 3494 who *wanted* puberty blockers. The problem remains that 89 is a comparatively small size, but this reflects the reality that most teens who want puberty blockers don't get it. I still think it's good information to have.
In terms of teens who follow the path of "trans-questioning -> don't get gender-affirming care -> eventually stop identifying as trans", I don't think I have any data on that. It would be interesting to hear about, but at the same time that particular group of people might be difficult to get ahold of for a survey.
@@eigenchris I suppose it might be a bit longer before we'd get easier access to that group.
Thanks for the response and particularly the sources doc, it's frustratingly uncommon to have an easily accessible source list even in videos that have some form of references.
I would never have expected the person who helped me learn one of the concepts I struggled most with in my differential geometry class to be standing up for the trans community. I’m lgbtq+ (aromantic asexual to be specific) myself, and while I don’t consider myself trans or cis (I kinda see myself as a grey area if that makes sense), I really do worry for the trans community and how they’re being treated recently. I greatly appreciate that you would stand up for the community like this. And it means even more to me to know that they’re are people in the math/stem community who will stand up for us. Also thanks for helping me get an A- in my diff geo class. Parallel transport made absolutely no sense to me until I watched your video on it:)
@@septopus3516 firstly I find it odd that you want to compare the experience of human beings to animals. It’s a very strange false equivalence and shows a very clear lack of understanding on what being trans gender actually is. Also I did it strange that you’re calling me a groomer when I’m literally aromantic and asexual. That sexuality literally means I don’t experience any romantic or sexual attraction whatsoever. I have absolutely zero interest in children or adults of any gender. I just want to learn math and live my life. Seriously take a moment to think critically and research before you comment ignorant things. Your lack of critical thinking and sheer arrogance is astounding.
They left that comment copy + pasted on around 5 different other comments, calling people a "groomer" each time. Don't think they're someone to be taken too seriously. I'm removing their comments.
@@eigenchris I see thank you for letting me know and taking the time to moderate! I really appreciate that. I’m sorry for engaging them.
@@tabbylovesmath173 It's fine. People who care about reason and evidence tend to get tempted into using reasonable and evidence-based arguments with an opponent who simply doesn't care. The result is a lot of wasted time.
@@tabbylovesmath173
There's no clear line between you and other animals.
There is a clear line between males and females.
One thing that really is annoying in that video is how intersex people are brushed aside when talking about sex. Apparently trans people are a major societal phenomenon and kids must be protected but intersex people are irrelevant? Turns out there are more intersex people than trans people so pick a lane. (I mean, it is an hypocritical stance a lot of people take but in a video that claim to be unbiased it really shows the hypocrisy).
@@AlbertZiegler069 First that's completely irrelevant to the point I'm making that trans peeople are seen as a major societal while intersex people are invisibilized and ignored. And often mutilated at birth so that they fit the definitions of biological sex we are used to despite there being no medical requirement (but I don't see any conservative talk about protecting children there).
Second yes gender is "based on belief" because gender is cultural. Not just trans identities, cis identities too. What it means to be a man or a woman is also arbitrary, the number of genders we asign people is arbitrary and varies across time and culture.
Third, just because something is subjective doesn't mean it's fake or that you should pretend it is. Pain is subjective but it still exist, sometimes even without any traceable physiological causes outside the brain like in some cases of chronic pain, but that doesn't mean it's not there.
Your emotions and appreciation of art are subjective but I'm not there telling you you don't actually love your favorite music, in fact the only accurate way I have to know your feelings towards something is if you tell me.
Gender is a similar type of thing, it's a feeliing, it's subjective and cultural but it still exist and has a major impact both on individuals and our societies.
The way we assign that gender roles at birth is by looking at some biological traits that yes are objective, but the gender roles themselves aren't objective things nor are the criterias we chose to determine what matters in attributing them.
So yes people being trans isn't measurable beyond them telling you how they feel but so is being cis.
The same people who think that trans people aren't real, that it's "social contagion," etc. also think that sex is a binary, that intersex people are just "defective" versions of the binary.
@@Laezar1it really is that simple
That's because there's nothing controversial being demanded in the name of intersex people.
@@MrCmon113 And so they are considered negligible and ignored when discussing gender and sex?
Cool, apparently you either get to ask for basic rights and be demonized, or not do it and be considered to not exist, don't see a problem with that?
Hi! I am stunned by this video, since I was following the spinor series as a review for my PhD.
I loved it, and I am deeply grateful that such a gifted person like you are decides to spend his time to make this platform a better place. Namely, from the Physics community that is not that updated in these topics.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart. I wish you all the best.
Damn. I wasn't expecting this video from your channel, but I am thoroughly impressed!
It's been so weird watching Sabine's rhetoric change as her ideas are given larger audiences. I'm starting to realize that "without the gobbledygook" is, unfortunately, a convenient way of also saying "without the parts I disagree with".
I always knew eigenchris was based
eigenbased
Based on what?
@@screwhalunderhill885facts and logic
Eigenchris is based and Sabine is biased
Based and eigenpilled
I think there is an elephant in the room. Not being in puberty alone is a reason to be less suicidal or have better mental health measures. How could these studies conclude that puberty blockers improve mental health? What are the statistical techniques to isolate the effect of being in puberty itself?
It's a valid question, but I think the papers I include support that the effect is due to the gender-affirming care. The 2nd survey I show is a survey among adults, and shows their present-day mental health as adults is related to whether or not they received puberty blockers as teens. The mental health improvements in two of the studies I show happen *during* teenage years.
@@eigenchris Conflation. You say your papers support the effect is due to "gender-affirming care", but then say adult mental health is related to receiving puberty blockers as teens. Do a Venn diagram; the concern is not where they intersect, and using it as if that's the totality of concerns is a choice of self-serving convenience.
Puberty ages you. Sex hormones age you. Bodies, metabolism, voice, hair... and all the social anxiety related to youth slipping away and transforming one into a mutant according to a genetic lottery. People who don't win the lottery can spend a significant portion of their lives trying to mitigate the effects. Some come out looking like models, but most get fat, skin issues, balding, etc. I'm not trans and my mental health would have been improved if I could have skipped puberty in many ways.
Your conflation is not only troubling because of it's lateral ease, but because similar research was done for lobotomies; advocates for what we call genital mutilation in other cultures make arguments for the societal integration conforming to their norms produces; circumcision has "health benefits" and the benefits of conforming to aesthetic norms, esp in a department as private as where attraction equals procreation/reproductive success. Do you really think that conservatives are the only ideology capable of creating a society wide atmosphere and pressure that children absorb as to what the norm is? Before it was arguably the clean-cut cis; now institutions and culture are dominated by the reaction to it and it's doing a poor job of seeing when it's doing the reciprocal.
Your videos show you can do the math and the fact you don't here is what's frustrating. There was a time when people were encouraged to love their bodies and not advocate for surgery because they had negative self image or were bullied for natural traits by the prevailing norms. Now the pendulum is swinging and because the norms involve the expectation that someone have some weirdness that provides cover from the accusation of being a cis and a naturally queer-unaligned person, we act like the same pressure dynamics don't exist.
Convenient framings of "healthcare" for taking natural children, raising them while impressionable with language that naturally leads to subverting norms = virtuous, while naturally being in the majority is "conforming" and means leaving the fascist/nazi tendencies of those backwards conservatives unchallenged, and is equivalent to abandoning the more queer to being bullied and marginalized. If you don't actively resist norms, you are supporting the negative behaviors just like Germans during WWII ignoring signs of growing atrocities, etc. Children are sophisticated neural networks that, while able to learn things quickly, absorb culture, society, identity, all over a decade. We are in a culture war and trans care research is treated by advocates with very high tolerance for self-serving redefinitions of language which are then leaned on heavily. In the future, "gender-affirming care" could be seen as hormonal, genital, or otherwise reproductive mutilation. Instead of just supporting natural emergence of whatever gender, we are actively resetting kids to equal probability in their ideation.
I assume you've seen Star Trek and the prime directive... this is akin to a technocratic civilization coming in and imposing their sensibilities to an organic, indigenous world, except it's within the same species, on the same planet. This is the real modern colonialism, trying to wipe out the savage, the bias and the violence of the tribes. Throughout history we have needed people in the positions of power to be able to spot red lines; the times when they should have seen, should have stopped and thought "maybe I'm the bad guy here"... for many, the line is giving kids drugs and surgery to stop their puberty, rob them of their genetic adulthood, reproductive freedom being meddled with by society, teachers getting between adults and their offspring, and the state stepping in to say experts, who have shown themselves to point to "research" to justify casually crossing over red lines in the name of a better society.
This is all without touching on the argument that the health of people and society are affected by their trial to pass through this stage and strive to integrate into adult life. We have the luxury in our high-tech insulated first-worlds that allow us to experiment with removing the hardship of puberty and an adulthood we didn't choose in our fantasy and virtual world-laden youths. We have thus far not discussed as a society the effects of replacing organic myth and religion with stories of how things could be purely from our instantaneous urges, cultivated by short-attention/attention-economy information spaces. People who feel wronged by the conservatives of old are quick to defend the idea that everything is 50/50 who cares whatever if left to our own instincts. They don't address the concerns that, just like the conservatives of old, that these cultural pushes of the unnamed culture war that's been going on have become ubiquitous. Those in power in education, corporations, law, media, are all bending to the new language, the new framing. We have people on social media calling for cancellation of ideological criminals, while also denying that cancel culture exists, while also accusing the other of cancel culture. This is a prime litmus test of war propaganda. You have a very important decision to make here and judging by the fact that you uploaded this and point to the research how you do, I'd assess that you are still under the fog of this war; you see virtue in speaking up for the research that is a product of the scientific method, which we've been taught is the salvation of truth and knowledge.
The unasked questions and the self-error checking against the small leans we all make to navigate towards a world where our conclusions exist after due critical analysis and thorough research, modifying what we would find if we truly tried to prove various things we didn't think were true or right, even if they were, cannot be treated so casually.
@enotdetcelfer Geez! You could have communicated whatever you wanted to in three paragraphs instead of rambling.
Congratulations for 100K sir ...Next month 200K
Thank you for this, so much
As a trans teen who loves math and physics, thank you for making this video!
What was your reaction to Sabine's video? What do you think about it?
same! i wasnt expecting it but it was really good
@applimu7992 how old are you?
Hi, applimu. I'm sorry you commenting on my video resulted in some gross comments being directed at you. I've deleted them. Thanks for your support!
What do you think about Transgender in Sports, should they compet in their biological sex as long as there is no transgender group?
I'm sorry but online survey doesn't=scientific study😢
I agree the longitudinal studies I mention are better evidence than online surveys. But I think online surveys can be useful for getting a sense of how people feel over a large population, provided they are done well. The ROGD online survey is an example of an online survey that was done poorly.
the most disapointing thing about this, is that, scientist who make videos in youtube with this kind of stuff lends the ideas of autogynephilia and ROGD more accuracy than they deserve. Like, with more normal right wing or partisan stuff, that isnt as upsetting as seeing someone who has the appearance of being an authority like scientists spreading misinformation.
Yeah, the neutrality-leaning-towards-credibility that Sabine handles ROGD with was the biggest red flag for me. Especially when she promotes skepticiam of new theories in particle physics.
thank you for making this, that video felt "off."
Agreed, as someone who has debated this subject quite a lot seeing her make a "both sides" argument in the first few sentences of her video was pretty surprising
Yeah it might be hindsight bias all her videos not entirely about natural science feel kind of off.
yes, let's determine the truth by our feelings. Exactly the kind of comment I expected.
Thank you so much for putting out this video Chris. This topic is super important to me and close to my heart, and I appreciate extremely how well thought-out, clearly worded, and source-backed this video was. Thank you so much for helping people become more informed and therefore more supportive and tolerant.
Congratulations for 100K subscribers!!! You truly deserve every one of them
You corses are nothing I had ever seen, They're so awesome!!
the analogy/diagram around 4:00 describing the conundrum is very good at doing that. It's obvious of course, I guess usually for people who constantly fall into the both-sides and centrism logical fallacy, they must not be able to imagine the latter example. hope that makes sense.
I am not impressed with online surveys. Collecting data is complicated and can be easily flawed intentionally or not intentionally.
That's a fair concern to have. The other longitudinal studies I mention are better evidence, but they only cover a 1-2 year study period after the start of transitioning. People often have concerns about "long term" effects of transitioning, which I hoped the online surveys would give better insight into. They did make sure to filter responses by unique IP address, but they are fundamentally weaker than proper studies.
But if online studies are to be dismissed, then the ROGD hypothesis should be dismissed as well, since it's based on an online study.
29:49 i thought it was written special relativity in timestamps
The flat spacetime and inertial frames of "Special Scrutiny" seem like child's play compared to "General Scrutiny." Wait until you're introduced to curvature, tensors analysis, and differential geometry. It gets nasty and complicated fast.
@@ritemolawbks8012 already introduced bro
@@depressedguy9467 Sorry bout your username.
If vaccines causes autism then give me a double dose, I'm way to non-autistic to be a successful physicist
Congrats on 100k!
Excellent work :)
I missed that you'd posted this, and only found it when I came to check in on the Spinors for Beginners series. anyway, thank you so much for addressing this subject, and for doing so so thoughtfully and eloquently. Sabine's descent from charmingly quirky songwriting physicist to "I'm telling the truth and the establishment wants to SiLeNcE MEEEE" trolling-both w/r/t her own field and on subjects like this-has been really depressing to watch.
Yeah. I saw someone describe her as consistently elevating more fringe theories to levels beyond what they deserve, given available evidence. She does this with Modified Gravity (instead of dark matter), superdeterminism, ROGD, among other things. It's definitely a bad habit for a science communicator.
@@eigenchris absolutely.
i got scared when i saw you post this video because i had no context but thank you so much for this
Yeah, I was afraid it was going to be trans slander so glad it was the opposite.
I like how you single out the central points Sabine makes at the start and weigh off the actual evidence in for and against. This is how online discussions ought to be had.
The researchers discussed at 42:26 are interesting to say the least. After a brief google, I found this article by J. Michael Bailey called "How to Ruin Sex Research" which makes some really weird claims e.g. that gay people are no longer marginalised and defends the notion of gender studies being a kind of "grievance studies" (i.e. painting the entire gender studies discipline as people complaining about injustices with essentially no scientific value).
This grievance studies thing is a theme that tends to come up when social conservatives want to completely discount social science research without actually having to engage with the research in question. This, I suggest, is because the conclusions of social scientists rarely if ever supports a conservative's rigid understanding of social categories. The paper he cites on this idea of "grievance studies" comes from the "grievance studies affair" where some academics (not from social sciences) emulate the Sokal Hoax whilst completely over-inflating and misinterpreting the implications of being able to pull of such a hoax.
It honestly didn't occur to me to google their names, given how much else I had to research for this video, but I see that J. Michael Bailey is the author of "The Man Who Would Be Queen", which is a non-academic book that brought the "autogynephelia" hypothesis to the mainstream in 2003. ("Autogynephelia" was originally introduced by Blanchard in academic literature, but Bailey brought it to the public's attention). Makes sense that he mentioned it in his paper, since that's basically his pet theory.
And yes, most of the pushback against trans healthcare comes from social conservatives. But uninformed people who are not social conservative can fall for their arguments if they aren't careful. And as in Sabine's case, many people are tempted to declare that "both sides are crazy". That's part of why I made this video--to push back against both of those stances.
@@eigenchris Ah yeah I saw that book mentioned on his wiki but didn't know that it actually had any impact. But to your second paragraph, of course - my point here was to point out that this is indicative of J. Michael Bailey's own politics and how that is likely effecting the direction of his research. The "grievance studies affair" is truly ridiculous, the more you look into it and the more you understand the context of the original Sokal hoax, the more ridiculous it becomes. So to be honest anyone who defends it in an actual academic capacity completely loses credibility in my eyes.
Excellent. Please consider also making a response to the content of a channel called Dialect. It mixes true and false statements about GR that lead the audience to believe time dilation and length contraction are illusory.
>> "believe time dilation and length contraction are illusory". Boy, is that an old chestnut. That's been corrected so many times. Problem is that everyone on the internet thinks they're an expert. Unfortunately, with the internet, there is no filter, particularly when it comes to science topics.
Agreed that dude is so full of shit but seems like there's an increase in demand for alternative takes nowadays which makes crackpots like him to get attention. People who have no clue won't be able to tell if it's bs or real deal
This is kind of weird, it seemed to me she mainly outlined the definitions of things related, gave a basic history, and said the imperial data has a lot of holes in it. Confirmation bias works both ways.
The point I'm trying to make is that she presents things one way, but it's not an honest representation of the facts. There is no evidence for rapid onset gender dysphoria, and there is evidence against it, but she doesn't frame it that way. She doesn't mention the evidence against ROGD it that I bring up, and acts like a survey of parents recruited from trans-skeptic websites is something worth discussing as possibly accurate.
@@eigenchrisI admit, I didn't list to it closely, but I'd didn't get the impression you did. It seemed like she was mentioning what went into the concepts in the conversation that surrounds the issue, and how they maybe aren't so credible. IMHO, they do need to be mentioned so we can understand what the thought process is.
I think the graphic at 4:01 really has felt like the majority of her stances that I am personally aware of. Never says much I disagree with, because she doesn't say much definitively to begin with.
This is a great video through and through; it is amazingly argued and brilliant piece of science communication. As a physics and philosophy graduate, it was a lovely surprise in my inbox
6:55 singular case study where teens where recruted via social network is biased. because recruting was based on pushing ads that are based on your activity therefore if you are happy about the transition its very possible that you get recruted for survey while the ones that did not have success with the treatment or had no consent from parents to participate are not included in the data. therefore the study is flawed and has those bias issues that are also pointed out in the article
23:43 Sabine's gell-mann amnesia?
Excellent video on helping me understand better. Still learning thanks for this video.
This is why I unsubscribed from Sabine’s channel.
You do you, but this is a pretty weak argument, you know? 🤔
As a long time fan and lurker, I just want to say "thank you" and express how impressed I am at this video. Not only does it take a lot of courage, knowing you will likely lose a lot of subscribers, but it is a wonderfully rigorous and thorough review of the science behind the subject.
As a fan of both you and Sabine, I do hope that this rebuttal is taken in the spirit of healthy debate. For me, Sabine's video perfectly reflects the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the topic and did some research try and give it an objective review. However, in doing so, she fell into the "false equivalence" trap of assuming that because there are two sides, they must each be "half right."
Your video, on the other hand, shows a deep contexual knowledge that only comes with both research and experience. You are brining a cultural and emotional context to the data that is, in all fairness, probably beyond Sabine's reach.
While I believe it would be graceless to write Sabine off entirely for this, I do hope this video finds its way across her desk and challenges her to update her thinking. After all, there is nothing more scientific than learning to admit when you are wrong or incorrect.
I very much appreciate this comment. I want Sabine to do better, because I like her. She has definitely stepped into an area outside of her expertise.
@@MattHudsonAtxYeah, and I think (or at least I hope) she's aware of that.
Not to be too uncharitable, but I think she's gotten well into the point where she's doing things for "content" and is willing to stick her fingers in pies that she doesn't really care too much about.
Which I understand, there's a point where you can't continue to grow talking about things that (strictly speaking) "normies" don't really give a shit about. There's a very narrow kind of science content/skill set that has mass appeal (think a NileRed) and Sabine does not have that.
I'm sure that as far as her and her team saw it, they did their due diligence, but because they're, apparently, not personally invested in the issue, it's easy for them to overlook things that would've been obvious to her working in her own interest set.
Wow I wasn’t expecting this one
I... should've. There is no escape.
I was about to make a classless and insensitive joke about getting a surprise gender reveal in the bedroom, but that would make me part of the problem.
i can't believe you're the guy i'm learning tensor calculus from lol, thank you so much for that vid dude it's really cool ! i mean, no one bats an eye when you make an april's fools video, those who do with this video are very sus.
That video is more than a few weeks ago.
yes elias, it took him more than a few weeks to find out about the video and prepare an hour-long fully-researched video.
thanks for making this❤
This is an amazing video. This might sound dumb, but I have never expected this kind of support for trans teens from this channel. I just came here to learn more physics, and it feels soo good to that you made such an amazing video explaining what happens with trans teens. I feel infintely more confotable just being myself on this channel. Thx
This is amazing. I'm 100% in support of this video. I've been learning more about trans issues lately and to see the best tensor calculus educator in existence also come out with a video challenging popular theories about trans youth is awesome. It's exactly the kind of evidence based, broken down educational content we all love from this channel and I'm out here for it.
Thank you for this video!
finally, thanks for this!
As a physicist I have always hated her takes on particle physics she struck me as more driven by personal agendas the any actual evidence or science even excluding her views on more controversial topics
I got impression from her particle physics videos that she mostly against "politics" in big experiments. Although somehow she ignores work of thousands of people and simulations behind proposition of new experimental device.
She always rubbed me as a bit of a charlatan, but I'm not a physicist so I don't know
Well, it is because you probably believe in the cult of superstring "theory" which is now a largely bunk
Not a physicist but studying to be one (just want to preface). It is very dangerous to pretend that one person, however qualified they may be, can judge whether science is “real” or “gobbledygook”. For her to present what she considers real science, there’s an implicit step of her judging ideas and whether they count as “real” science based on her own personal ideas. This is exactly why we value and need peer review.
@@uwuifyingransomware I think it is problem of audience, not a science popularizer. She is making video about topics interested for her, and gives actually her opinion based on her research of a topic. We shouldn't consider her opinion as an expert opinion. Even when she is talking about a subject of her expertise, it is wise to consider conclusion of expert group, not an individual. Plus, it is popular science, where 95% of details are ignored during presentation.
How can you be smart, funny and based at the same time lmao
@@FRANKONATOR123 I can understand an objection to the latter two, but you must have very high standards if you wouldn't at least passively consider someone who's run a channel like *this* for 10 years "smart".
This video is now almost a year old so I REALLY doubt this will be seen, but just in case: At 4:37 there is a list of recent state laws banning affirmative care for transgender youth. One is HB1125 in Massachusetts, which struck me odd.
It turns out that the law in question was from Mississippi, NOT Massachusetts.
oops. Silly mistake on my part. I'll add a note in the pinned comment about that, although I think most people who are gonna watch this have already watched it.
@@eigenchris Yeah, I agree. Thanks, but yeah, it won't get seen. But I had to stick up for my (former) home state.
I was expecting a comment on the number of papers concluding the opposite to the ones you showed. If one side has substantially more evidence i.e. papers, then that should me mentioned. I want to say I have not done any research on this topic.
Excellent in-depth critique. Good to see science communicators stepping up to the mark - it takes more courage than it should (I applaud Sabine in this respect).
Ethan Siegal recently posted "What is a Woman", which might interest you.
Hi, I'm a long time viewer first time commenter. This is one of the best videos I've seen on this subject on all fronts. Your style translates well and it's nice to know that you're an ally.
Thanks for this. I was so surprised to see this come up in my feed as the other videos I watched by you were on tensor calculus! They were excellent too 😊
On the point you make about prescribing puberty blockers to minors, it seems to me more of an argument to not give blockers to intersex people or those experiencing precocious puberty than an argument to give blockers to trans kids. The point - that they are too young to meaningfully consent and that they may regret it later stands in all of those cases.
The point I try to make is that regret goes in both directions--they can regret NOT taking them as well. Many people make the argument that "kids are too young to choose", but NOT taking them is also a choice with potential downsides. It's impossible to "not choose"--whatever they do will be a choice. Puberty blockers as a treatment for precocious puberty has been FDA approved since 1993 and I think it's unfair to try and ban them for gender-affirming care purposes specifically.
@@eigenchris I agree - the policy ought to be the same for precocious puberty and gender dysphoria alike, unless a special case can be made for one of them. My thought is that one could reasonably argue that because they can't meaningfully consent then it falls to parents or guardians to make that decision - acknowledging that if people want to argue that for gender dysphoria, they are committed to accepting it for precocious puberty also.
@@notgodzodyou say that last sentence awfully like it's a gotcha. you do know we'd advocate for them being allowed to take puberty blockers "even if" it turns out they're cis after all, right?
@@Errenium Hi there. No, it wasn't meant as a gotcha at all. I was just pointing out that this is an available consistent position to take in response to EigenChris's point. The idea would be, that both in the case of trans kids and intersex kids, we really don't know who's going to regret taking hormones and who isn't - but being as they are minors, it is for parents and guardians to make that decision (acknowledging that it might turn out to be a decision that the kids themselves are not happy about in adult life). Thanks for replying to my comment in a reasonable manner btw, I really appreciate it. Not everyone does!
41:18 laughed a lot at this part . 42:25 best part
All of the issues with the rapid onset paper apply to the entire field of research.
But are there any RCT studies to control for placebo? If not her point is valid.
Randomized control studies would involve denying people treatment on purpose. It's not always ethical to do that in medicine, and I would say that's true in this case.
@@eigenchris I understand the complications although I don't agree with your assesment of RCT being unethical in this case. I can't understand what denying treatment would mean in this case. You can't deny anything to anyone in RCTs, that's not how they work. People have to participate consentiously (but still might not be selected - that doesn't mean being denied treatment, they can go and pursue treatment elsewhere if available).
In any case, that doesn't change the fact that we simply don't know how much of placebo effect would explain the results of the studies you mention. And if you can't address this, any analysis is inherently flawed and/or biased. Not only that, but also potentially harmful, since any treatment could have side effects, physical and/or psycological. Imagine if we figure out in the end that psychological treatment and support helps equally well to hormone therapy or sex-change surgery. Why would someone have to get the undesirable side-effects of a treatment that's not offering any benefit over milder interventions?
@@stathius But why would anyone voluntarily refuse the treatment? If they have gender dysphoria (negative emotions due to their gender being mismatched with their body), and a medical solution is sitting in front of them, why would they not take it? I agree RCT is basically the gold standard for evidence in medicine, but it's not the only form of evidence, and I think we should take other forms of evidence seriously as well, even if they are technically weaker. Not every medical treatment is justified with RCT. Cancer treatments come to mind.
What side effects are you concerned about in particular? With puberty blockers, don't kids taking them for precocious puberty already experience those same side effects? That treatment has been FDA approved since 1993. And hormone replacement therapy has been around since the 1960s. There are plenty of newer medications that don't get scrutinized nearly as much.
And the idea of trying to get a trans person to "just accept their body" via therapy has a very poor track record, in the same way that trying to get gay people to become straight using therapy has a very poor track record.
@@eigenchris Then the studies are worthless.
Even though trans people have existed forever, the long-term effects of taking hormones are not fully understood. And there has to be some percentage of teenagers that are choosing transition for the wrong reasons. I hope that number is very low. In this cultural battle, with so many bad actors, trusted sources are hard to identify. My son started taking hormones to transition, and it has caused me great concern. I'm not being purposely disrespectful using the word "son" since he hasn't changes names, or asked for different pronouns, and has just started to dress more feminine. This only became apparent around a year ago at age 18. As a kid, there were no outward signs of this. Even by his own account, there were just a few examples from his youth where he thought about it. I love all my kids so much and I wish I had more confidence this is the right thing to do. Late onset, not living it through words and clothes (until his body changes, is his reasoning), and coming after developing some anxiety and possible depression, gives me some doubt.
As a bi man who didn't realize his orientation until he was 23, I'm sympathetic to the idea of a person finding out their LGBT identity as an adult. Some trans people don't figure out they are trans until their 30s, or even later. I'll say that attempting to transition on hormones without changing pronouns first does sound a little unusual to me. Just anecdotally, the few trans people I know (where I knew them both before and after transitioning) switched pronouns before taking hormones. However, I can also understand some people are anxious about changing pronouns in public when they don't "look the part", so to speak. When it comes to depression, this is often correlated with gender dysphoria because gender dysphoria typically causes depression. Some people try to insist depression can cause people to identify as transgender but I haven't see any evidence this is true and I'm personally pretty skeptical of that.
I wish I had better advice to offer, but all I can really suggest is to continue to do your best to have a good relationship with your child. If you're feeling anxiety over their decision, I think it's okay to express how you feel, as long as you're willing to hear out their experience as well.
I very much appreciate the points you make and the time you took to respond. My relationship with my two boys is everything to me. It is a balancing act because he is rather passionate about it. Understandable with this cultural battle going on. Best of luck to you.
It's very happy that u didn't kept sources behind paywall
&
Fed up on such people who talks science & others science opinion/video ,keep source behind payment gateway
I think another important point for regret rates is that people in general don’t realise that almost all medical treatments have significant regret rates, surgeries especially.
people regret knee replacement surgery much more frequently for example.
I have never met one single person that regretted knee replacement surgery. The other thing is that knees are replaced because the joint is no longer healthy. Trans surgery involves removing perfectly healthy tissue
@@courtesyofdickboakFair point, but that doesn't really negate anything they said.
Based on at least one public study that I found (2020), doi below
10.1186/s12891-020-3041-y
Their claim that knee replacement surgery regret is significant is legit. The study reported that 61/348 (18%) reported "discontent" in their cohort.
There are likely similar studies in the sources for that one if just the one isn't sufficient for you.
As far as whether you're replacing healthy tissue or not, that's true, but I'm not entirely sure how that's relevant? Unless you're just suggesting that we shouldn't be performing surgery unless it serves to restore function.
Which, to be clear, I think is a fair argument. I disagree, but a lot of people are against cosmetic procedures (past a certain extent at least) on principle, and I get some of the reasons.
@@courtesyofdickboak _‘Research suggests that up to one-third of those who have knees replaced continue to experience chronic pain, while 1 in 5 are dissatisfied with the results. A study published last year in the BMJ found that knee replacement had “minimal effects on quality of life”.’_ Now compare that to regret rates as well as effect on QOL for gender affirming care, and you’ll see why trying to stop or even criminalise trans peoples access to healthcare (based on your reasoning) is both unsupported and wholly unethical.
[Side note, but ‘I’ve never met one single person who-‘ is anecdotal and not fit for use in healthcare, or any scientific field for that matter]
@@Evan.01 I feel your analysis of the data is misleading. People regret THAT knee replacement surgery, with THAT particular doctor/hospital etc. and during that context, not knee replacement surgery in general. People get these because they need them. Even if they still experience pain, the purpose was to help them. Just because that surgery sucked,it doesn't mean they regret having the surgery. It doesn't say that they wished they hadn't done it, but rather that the results were not what they had hopped for. It might be minor improvement, but when you are in a lot of pain, it counts more.
This doesn't say anything about transgender medical interventions. That's something else that needs to be studied because there's more factors here. There isn't much space here, but I just want to point out that the excessive focus on medicalization misses the mark. There have been transgender people for hundreds of years, maybe thousands,and they have lived ok either passing as the opposite gender or living in an inbetween space without needing to change their bodies with radical surgeries.
Someone regretting bottom surgery because the result is awful doesn't mean they aren't trans or that transitioning was a bad idea. It just means bottom surgery in particular may not be regulated ok currently. They regret the final look because of a particular doctor/hospital who butchered them. You shouldn't need to change your genitals. Wtf!? That's dangerous. Let's not pretend like this doesn't involve lots of complications afterwards. That's got nothing to do with the validity of being trans. And even if you go that route, you should be able to voice the issues/problems without immediately being labeled as being anti-trans or regreting "being trans" or transitioning. To transition means much more than bottom surgery and in fact most trans people choose NOT to do bottom surgery because of the risks involved.
@@courtesyofdickboak what a BS. I have met people who regret it
Very brave to move out of your ordinary field and to address a delicate topic. And a very thorough job, as always.
Thanks uploader.
There's a fairly simple metric that I feel nobody could deny and that's looking at suicide/self harm rates up till one's 30s (i picked this as "far enough" from teenager; i'm sure a more well thought out age can be identified) for cis-peeps, trans peeps who didn't have puberty blockers and trans peeps that did.
From this video I get the feeling that indeed, puberty blockers are working, but why is there no single easy graph that people can point to, to lay this issue to rest? The graph would have suicide/self harm rates on the y, and age on the x. Then 3 curves for cis, trans with PB, and trans without PB. If the trans without PB curve has a larger area under than the with PB curve then there's no room to argue surely?
Sure we might not have adequate data for people that have used PBs to reach into the 30s but i'm sure we can at least start seeing some interesting trends on this very simple graph, which will only become closer to the truth as the years tick by and the studies accumulate? And since it's a single simple graph it can be effectively communicated to the general public, something that science across all fields has a big problem with.
Also I realise I'm no expert in this field but would genuinely like to know what the issues with this approach are?
edit: applying the same correlation analyses as has been done with the other studies mentioned in this video
There are a few reasons why graphs like this aren't immediately available:
- Puberty blocker treatment for gender affirming care in teens is "relatively" new in human history, and has only been done at a large scale over the past 20 years or so, and there is less data for the earlier cases (they've been used for precocious puberty for at least 30 years, but that's different)
- Tracking people over the course of decades is difficult and time consuming. One of the surveys I mention simply asked existing trans adults various mental health questions and asked if they wanted to take puberty blockers, and if they ended up taking them. This can roughly approximate the effect of puberty blockers over a long time scale, but it's not as good as actively tracking trans people throughout their lives
- Anytime someone does die by suicide, it can be difficult to obtain their medical records or include them in a medical analysis, or even know if they were trans, unless you were already actively tracking them to begin with. Also it's not always a black-and-white case of suicide vs not-suicide. There are multiple degrees of negative mental health where puberty blockers can make a difference.
I think the data is likely to become more clear and evident as time goes on. There are some uncertainties and some areas where it's reasonable to ask questions. But over the past 5-6 years, the anti-trans movement has really ramped up and is exploiting people's ignorance about trans issues, so a lot of people don't know what the data really says in the first place. As I say in the video, it can be very easy to be mislead on trans issues online if you aren't careful.
@@eigenchris "Sapolsky's view that "on average" the sexually dimorphic parts of the brain show the opposite trend in those trans individuals who report always having felt themselves to be the other gender, but there's a lot to unpack there. The first thing to note is the "on average", which immediately means that some will show very little difference from their "assigned gender", while others will show more. Then there's the question - as he mentioned someone hypothesizing - of whether those who only "discover" they are trans in their teenage years, or as they approach puberty or adolescence, are simply having a delayed response, or - as has been asserted several times in the field - might be responding to social contagion, or a convenient way to avoid the fallout of childhood trauma, of abuse or neglect, or fears of one's expected gender roles in future, or internalized homophobia in cases of self-suppressed homosexual feelings, of simple teenage rebelliousness, etc., etc.
Then there remains the question of what these sexually dimorphic brain regions represent, in anyone. If we learn to play a musical instrument, our brain changes. If we get more or less exercise, or change diet, or join a book group - everything we do has some effect on the structure of our brain. So it follows that those regional differences in the sexes might correspond functionally - might be causally related to - all manner of thoughts, feelings and behaviours that we associate with the sexes. Indeed it seems obvious they will. Sapolsky criticised the literature from the 50s in which aberrant behaviour in females meant not wanting to play with dolls. Silly old sexist nonsense. But it follows that if these kinds of behaviours - which we now consider sexual stereotypes, and regarding which we now encourage freedom of sexual expression - correspond with the sexual dimorphism of the brain regions mentioned, then the "gendered brain" might not indicate, as one student put it, "being in the wrong body", but merely having one particular constellation of behaviours that either sex ought to be able to express. Indeed, interviews with trans individuals often include such stereotypes, which they consider indicators of their "wrong body", rather than thinking "I'm a tomboy" or "I'm a sensitive kind of guy".
This is extremely important, because we know that there are rising numbers of transitioners in the West (particularly the USA), and rising numbers of detransitioners criticising the one-size-fits-all, so-called "affirmative care" model, which took their self-reports of feeling odd in their social role and stuck them on puberty blockers, opposite-sex hormones, and perhaps surgical procedures, which they now bitterly regret and see as completely erroneous. Those procedures often lead to a range of physical and psychological distress that could have been avoided, including sterility.
We also know from several other cases that social contagion is a real phenomenon and affects in particular pre-pubescent girls. We know that our frontal cortex takes twenty-odd years to come fully on line, the part of our brain that finds compromises and rational solutions to things that disturb our monolithic emotions without its sober cogitation. We know that its functioning is even more widly confused during puberty - younger children make better decisions than teenagers! All this should give us great caution about allowing private medical companies to trade in gender transition procedures without proper assessment of other possible routes. It should stop us hearing "brains are gendered, and trans brains are opposite-gendered; and the brain is the best judge of who we are" and thinking that's cleared up the gender debate and it's time to reach for the pills or the knife. A large percentage of "trans" kids grow up through puberty (if allowed to) to recognise they were going through a phase, and they're happy in their biological sex. A significant number turn out to be gay. So running down the trans route too fast, in some cases, seems to be a kind of dystopian, radical conversion therapy - for gay people, turning them into pseudo-straight people, by pretending they're the other sex."
´"Human bodies have evolved to go through the sexual puberty that corresponds to their biological sex. There is no such thing as the wrong puberty. There is puberty (the thing your body is built to do) and there are degrees of artificial sterility that can be inflicted on it."
"You pretend you know sex is different from gender, but really you imagine the person has some kind of sexed soul that's the opposite (or some other condition) from their physical sex. And you repeat obvious lies endlessly, like nobody is going to get surgery before they're 18 - research how many double mastectomies were done in the last few years on girls (GIRLS, the ones with breasts) at 14 and 15 and 16, even many at 13 years old.
And your utter bs that transition surgery is one of the most successful medical procedures ever. The patient is butchered. They very often have incontinence problems. They spend inordinate amounts of money trying to get the "complications" sorted, lining the pockets of surgeons, but often getting nowhere nearer a healthy body, and nowhere near the image of themselves they were aiming at. A high proportion continue to have mental health problems that were not sorted out, because the exploratory therapy you imagine happens doesn't, and almost all therapists involved feel brow-beaten into affirming the gender the person is supposedly "exploring" (often at risk of losing their job, or being attacked by a trans mob). And those mental health problems are increased by living a lie - pretending, trying to pass as the opposite sex, and feigning conditions like "a gay trans man" or "a trans lesbian".
The contrast with homosexual rights is stark, and vast numbers of gays and lesbians are disavowing the trans nonsense, seeing much of it as gay conversion therapy by stealth."
"It is insane to suggest that mental health problems are somehow available to be dealt with by a young person AFTER they have declared themselves to be a different sex ("gender" is just smoke up your ass) from their biologial sex, and added all the complications of transition!
We have masses of evidence that transition is seen as the magic silver bullet that will solve a young person's problems, only to find that after going down that route they still have all the same issues they did before, only now they're obsessed by how well they're doing with their transition, how well they pass, how they're coping with the side-effects of medication, planning where this journey is going to end, will they have surgery and when, how are they being accepted or not by their peers, their family, the rest of society.
It is insane to assess someone with any mental health problem and, before helping them discover the root of those problems and heal from them, dumping transition procedures on them! I am trained in therapeutic counselling and practised counselling for a decade, so I know what I'm talking about. Until the TRA Critical Study fruitloops got hold of our culture by the throat, no therapist would countenance doing such a stupid thing.
Now even the BACP is being infiltrated by them. Individuals like you I just feel compassion for, pity, because you've been hoodwinked, your delusions have been accepted as truths and amplified. Your delusion that you are somehow "female" despite clearly being male, is wrong and stupid and you should have been corrected. There is no blame in that (from me - I know other GCs can be cruel because they don't understand the psychological pressures on every one of us and why we choose to do the things we do).
You massively underestimate the regret, for example, because you don't take into account the enormous resistance someone feels when they contemplate desistance or detransition, yet the evidence is out there. Follow the work of Eliza Mondegreen, for instance. You will probably baulk at the idea, because she's dubbed a hateful transphobe, but she clearly is not, she's a caring, concerned and highly intelligent student of the phenomenon, particularly focusing on the psychological and social pressures on people transitioning and detransitioning.
She shows that the social media where gender-questioning youth go radicalizes them - it sucks them in. They are told that to be at all gender questioning (which most young people go through as part of growing towards puberty) means you ARE "trans". They are schooled in how to play the system to convince medics and told that their parents must accept their gender identity or be rejected. They're love bombed, invited into their sparkly trans family of people who don't know them from Adam (or Eve), and any doubts they have are twisted into signs of "internalized transphobia". If all this is new to you, it's because you've not been following the phenomenon in an unbiased fashion, and it's time you began reading the GC material. Having "hundreds of trans friends" is a source of bias, it doesn't make you an expert on trans. There is, in fact, no such thing as "being trans" - as far as we know, there is no such physiological condition - there is merely thinking you are, or trying to appear like, the opposite sex. You will never know what an actual human female feels like, or deal with any of their actual lived experiences in this world, and nor will I. Sorry if that all sounds harsh, but you insisted you needed to continue putting out your incorrect propaganda, and I felt the need to push back against it."
@@ambientjohnnyLove the citations without sources babe, scientific rigour at work right here
@@HunsterMonter They are quotes by other users, one of whom happens to be a therapist. Why does it matter? Are you unable to evaluate ideas on their own without some "authority" telling you how to feel about it?
@@ambientjohnny Ah I love a mysterious anonymous therapist and nebulous "other users". Still not a source tho.
A thing I noticed is Sabine doesnt interpret the papers accurately. In her video about nuclear she mentions that hydropower has the second up most death rate mostly due to an event in China when a dam broke and killed 100 000+ people, when she herself says (like in the paper) that the statistic is of deaths from the 90s till 2013. The dam broke in 1975 and didnt affect that statistic at all. In fact in a graph in the very same paper hydro power dominates when its taken from the 50s till 2013.
The trans video was extremely hastily put together with an extreme amount of edited patch ups unusual for her videos too. It looked sketchy to begin with and the data interpretation did not befit a scientist.
Of course it wasnt enough, but when there is thounsands of years of evidence in favor, compared to miniscule counter evidence theres something wrong. Especially when this is a socio-psychological phenomena.
Never thought ill be seeing this type of content on my Tensor Calculus channel. Not complaining though
This is great work
Great video!
Thank you for making this video. I'm trans, and I'd followed Sabine's channel fairly consistently but couldn't comfortably keep doing so after she made some of these remarks.
LOLOLOOLOLOL
Thank you for elevating the voices of trans people against this misinformation being spread by trusted educators.
Excellent
I watch and like many of Sabine’s videos. I watch and like yours. I did not watch Sabine’s video this responds to because I couldn’t get through the glaring logical mess it was. That was only more frustrating because she is obviously capable of articulating the same logical inconsistencies and issues with other arguments (that’s what I like about her videos generally). I’m really glad you made this video. If making videos was something I was good at, it’s the video I would want to make.
(One thing I wish you’d gone into a little more was just how wrong Sabine’s assertions of little benefits and large uncertainties were.)
There's zero evidence to suggest sabine is arguing in bad faith as you seem to imply.
@@Daniel-ih4zh I wasn’t intending to imply that and I don’t think she was arguing in bad faith. In fact, there’s zero evidence that I was implying that as you seem to imply :)
@@Daniel-ih4zh Something can be an illogical mess without being in bad faith. Believe it or not, but human beings have emotions and can become mislead and biased. This is why we have science and should try to trust conclusions that come from scientific models that predict the results of the best experiments we are able to conduct.
I feel like this is nothing new, Sabine's takes on particle physics relating to string theory, super symmetry etc .are pretty silly and disingenuous, she likes to make it seem as if there is major controversy in the physics community surrounding these areas in order to garner attention. watching sabine talk to ed witten was like seeing a cockroach argue with a human being
@@tracyh5751 what emotions would those be?
It's absolutely hilarious to witness the sheer ignorance displayed by certain individuals in the comment section, claiming they unsubscribed from Eigenchris after a mere glimpse of his content. Are they truly that clueless?
Eigenchris has dedicated countless years of his life to meticulously crafting videos on the intricate subjects of special and general relativity, tensor calculus, and education. It's laughable that anyone would assume he would abruptly cease his educational endeavors, or even dare to insinuate that he would stop sharing insightful videos about spinors or education.
I vividly recall the moment I discovered Eigenchris's affiliation with the LGBT community during his captivating presentation on Relativity 108b. It was during that eye-opening video when he fearlessly invited his boyfriend to tackle a complex integral, promptly answering an inquiry about his gender by proudly proclaiming his bisexuality.
But let's set the record straight here - there is absolutely nothing to be ashamed of in Eigenchris's openness about his identity. What truly deserves a hearty chuckle is the fact that those who claim to have unsubscribed are willfully denying themselves the invaluable opportunity to expand their knowledge through his enlightening educational content, all due to their narrow-minded and judgmental perspectives.
Oh, the irony! While you criticize Eigenchris for occasionally delving into political topics, it is you who will suffer the consequences of missing out on the chance to absorb profound lessons from this remarkable individual. You possess the autonomy to choose your own preferred subjects of interest instead of wasting precious energy on fruitless anger and hurling insults at someone who pours their heart into creating exceptional videos.
In all honesty, whether it's information about politics or mathematics, every facet of knowledge holds valuable lessons waiting to be learned. Don't let your own ignorance overshadow the incredible dedication Eigenchris exhibits in his content. Open your mind, broaden your horizons, and embrace the opportunities for growth that lie within his videos.
“Set the record straight” 😂
Well said.
I can't tell whether this guy is taking the shit.
Yes, guys, I used ChatGPT to improve my English grammar and ended up with that, lol.
I never comment on videos, but I have to say that you did an excellent job explaining the entire process of scientific discovery and how it is often abused by biases or hastily written clickbait media articles. I already was a thankful subscriber for the excellent math videos, but you have brilliantly shown what being a scientist (and human being for that matter) is all about. Love it! Keep it up!
It is sad to see which damage an excessive need for recognition can cause. It is like a slap in the face
A thing to watch out for especially at a scientist offering misinformation. Is the mathematics. Like for example the rapid onset gender dysphoria thing. Even Einstein mentioned compound interest mathematics, and even if strange to people in a way not at about money. Something like either a natural phenomenon or a pathology social or completely otherwise can spread in the same likeness of proportions. That means the mathematics of both a positive or negative view that can direct vision to be for or against something at in perspectives can be married to perceptions at in the mathematics. Both can appear right. When obviously both can't be right. Religious and political corruption would shatch that up as an influence in a heartbeat and play games at even all around at with it. So, watch out for that and blow the whistle on the details when they try to pull a fast one about it. Their mathematics will look right in one place but no so much at in something else that shows its they're pulling a fast one. Pitting Einstein against Einstein? No really t even fair if even Einstein did it. To spite whatever an appearances at a tie score. A virus can appear mathematically to spread in the same proportions as a species own natural and positive adaptations.. Compound interest math can be used to measure chain reactions. Unfortunately one chain reaction can look like another sometimes. MRI technology scans of the transgender peoples own brain tissue aren't coming from a social or otherwise contagion though. They involve genetically sexually dimorphic parts of the brain. Yes, that means even the correct biblical interpretation can't be anti transgender or it violates "I shall never leave you nor forsake you". It's indeed adequate evidence to "PROVE" being transgender is not only natural but that it is a nature intended course of human adaptation.(Most likely to counter the negative influences of sexisms among are species (WHICH ARE NOT NATURAL AND JUST SO HAPPEN TO FIT ALL THOSE NEGATIVE THINGS THE BIBLES ROMANS CHAPTER ONE REALLY MENTIONS.You know, speaking of how different concepts can appear like each other in logic even if they aren't the same thing. You know, like 1600+ years of related sexist and anti LGBTQ+ oppression across the entire globe. You know, maybe they steered some people wrong? Which something like maybe 30+ years research into the most ancient authoritative manuscripts of the Bible on the planet might teach you, or, just being merciful enough not to be an a**hole to LGBTQ+ people and or anyone else at based on gender or sexuality. Yep, at a lack of kindness and mercy people have 1690+ year old oppressive brain farts, and unfortunately things like the pathological patterns of religious and political sociopathy and psychopathy love to even deliberately keep such things around, too. So, it's great to understand about cluster B personality disorders at to dismantle their effects on sociological scales. So, y'all remember that. Cause even when religious and political people aren't the 1% the population that's psychopath and sociopath. 24% of CEOs are sociopaths and they also like religious and political leadership and advisement positions and especially at how negative sensationalism mongering can effect a money and power flow and economic trends especially surrounding things like "the traditions of men. Like at in things like politically polarized negative opinion based internet or otherwise media commentatoring etc. Maybe even associated with the concept of "family" or their might even be a sociopath lawyer hate group or two that model oppressive laws. Thing like that. Quantum physics, unlikely, but funding for quantum physics, likely. Fields metal monetarily worthless. Billionaires are still often billionaires, at someone else, actually really did, the math. Which might be why I'm thinking on innovating an engine. Quite literally mostly made out of, well, dirt. Impossible? Really? You'd really even dare bring up that word with me? I tell you I can make me a dirt engine. It means I can make me a dirt engine. There's also going to be some gravel, and pretty much only one moving part. If you don't think I'd could power your house at by digging in the dirt around it how that I'd want. You'd be wrong.. That, and your neighbors if I wanted. Imma make me one out of some trash first I think though. I'm homeless. I don't own any dirt. Can't make a dirt engine with no dirt. Imma use some duct tape, and some trash. It's like it's all about sex. Its all about thermal acoustics. Yep, just like that."LET THERE BE LIGHT!"
Yeah yeah we get it. Now let’s get back to the tensors
Indeed. I am reviewing General Relativity and his detailed and clear explanations of tensions has proved to be quite helpful.
I have a lot of respect for Sabine and her physics content is some of my favorite; however, she definitely dropped the ball on this one and I'm glad a fellow YTer has mounted a very thorough rebuttal. Nicely done!
what happened to spinors?
What kind of science do you think should be done to determine that it is safe and good to stop someone from experiencing puberty, and even potentially, if they want, they can experience the puberty of the opposite sex they were born. You would think there would be a lot of medical research done in to whether this is safe for a human before doctors started experimenting on our kids.
As I point out at 34:28, puberty blockers have been used on children since at least 1993 (30 years ago), when they were approved by the FDA for children with "precocious puberty". I wouldn't call puberty blockers experimental, given that we've been using them on kids for 30 years.
For studies that test the effectiveness of puberty blockers, I mention two around 8:00, the sources I label as [8] and [9], which compare children experiencing gender dysphoria who received puberty blockers vs those who did not.
Do you really think that addressed my point? Puberty blocker have been used in extreme cases, look at the experiences of people with precocious puberty and how the side effects were severe and they take great care to minimize. That is a medical situation that is dealt with in spite of the negative side effects. You need to not only justify its use in kids to treat something that is not precocious puberty and then take it a step further to justify that kid then taking cross sex hormones and not experiencing the puberty their body naturally was designed to experience.
How are you discounting that profound scientific question that was never answered sufficiently by the medical community of: “for the health of an individual, do you need to go through the puberty that your body would naturally go through” or can we place a stop sign in the way so puberty will wait around until we decide which set of hormones to give it and then it doesn’t really matter which ones XX or XY chromosome possessing individuals take
Cross sex hormones increase cancer rates for both sexes. You need to reference data beyond happiness, even if I accepted those conclusions, it doesn’t address other health impacta
@@ryansamuel8835 yeah, they increase the cancer rates to the cancer rates of the sex youre transitioning to. breast cancer is more likely when you take estrogen because now you have breast tissue. youd know that if you werent a fucking charlatan
Thank you so much for your work on this subject 🥲🙏
My respect for eigenchris before this video: 110%
My respect for eigenchris after this video: 9999999999%
same
I know right? Absolutely crazy that, as far as I'm concerned, *the* best collegiate+ mathematics channel on RUclips is also socially aware, critical, and compassionate enough to act on their convictions and step out of type for a second.
If you'd told me he'd make this video 5 years ago when I was just trying to learn some Tensor Calculus, I wouldn't have believed you, but I'm glad he did!
The math is as good as the science here. Percentage wise.
@@haniamritdas4725so very good?
Bi king 👑Seriously though, thank you for making this! There isn't enough critical responses in the STEM scene that utilize studies to inform our decisions.
What is going on here is people are pretending to act as if their positions are equal to objective studies on these.