#people who agree with everything else will still think someone more competent could've done a much better job

[keelanrosa]

terfs when a study shows literally anything positive about trans people/transitioning: 'hm i think this requires some fact-checking. Were those researchers REALLY unbiased? Because if they were biased this doesn't count and if they weren't knowingly biased they probably were unconsciously biased, woke media affects so much these days. Have there been any other studies on this? Because if there haven't been this could be an outlier and if there have been and they all agree that's a bit odd, why aren't there any outliers, and if there have been and any disagree we really won't know the truth until we very thoroughly analyze them all, will we? Were there enough subjects for a good sample size? Did every single subject involved stay involved through the whole study because if they didn't we should be sure nothing shady was going on resulting in people dropping out. Are we 110% sure all the subjects were fully honest and at no point were embarrassed or afraid to admit they didn't love transitioning to the people in charge of their transition? Are we 110% sure none of the subjects were manipulated into thinking they were happy with their transition? In fact we should double-check what they think with their parents, because if the subjects and their parents disagree it's probably because they've been manipulated but their cis parents have not and are very unbiased. How many autistic subjects were there because if there weren't enough then this doesn't really study the overlap between autistic and trans and if there were too many then we just don't know enough about what causes that overlap to be sure this study really explains being trans and isn't just about being autistic. How many AFAB subjects were there because if there weren't enough this is just another example of prioritizing AMAB people and ignoring the different struggles of girls and women and if there were too many how do we know sexism didn't affect the results. Was the study double-blinded? We all know double-blinded is the most reliable so if this one wasn't that's a point against it even if the thesis literally physically could not be double-blinded. Look i'm not being transphobic, i want what's best for trans people! Really! But as a person who is not trans and therefore objective in a way they cannot possibly be, i just think we should only take into account Good Science here. You want to be following science and not being manipulated or experimented upon by something unscientific, right?'

terfs when they see a study of 45 subjects so old it predates modern criteria for gender dysphoria and basically uses 'idk her parents think she's too butch', run by a guy who practiced conversion therapy, 'confirmed' by a guy who treated the significant portion of subjects who didn't follow up as all desisting, definitely in the category of 'physically cannot double-blind this', completely contradicted by multiple other studies done on actual transgender subjects, but can be kinda cited as evidence against transitioning if you ignore everything else about it: 'oOOH SEE THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKIN BOUT. SCIENCE. Just good ol' unbiased thorough analysis. I see absolutely no reason to dig any deeper on this and if you think it's wrong you're the one being unscientific. It's really a shame you've been so thoroughly brainwashed by the trans agenda and can't even accept science when you see it. Maybe now that someone has finally uncovered this long-lost study from 1985, we can make some actual progress on the whole trans problem.'

#science #transphobia #cass review #less 'cass review' generally more 'zucker specifically' because this same problem exists outside cass #have lost count of the number of times i've seen 'well THAT study may have said most trans kids persist but it MUST be wrong' #'there's another study says the exact opposite. that one's right. obviously.' #but cass is why i'm annoyed by it now #normally i don't have a problem with critical observations and questions. yeah check your science! that's good! #there have been some bullshit studies and some bullshit interpretations of good studies! scientific literacy is important! #and normally also am willing to pretend the people pulling reaction 1 on some studies and reaction 2 on others are. not the same group. #but now there's a ton of cass supporters tryna say 'oh the cass review didn't reject or downplay anything for being pro-trans!' #'some studies just weren't given much weight for being poor evidence! not our fault those were all studies with results trans people like!' #…….………….aight explain why zucker's findings are used for the 'percentage of trans kids who don't stay trans' stat instead of anyone else's. #would've been more scientifically accurate to say 'yeah we just don't know.' #'studies have been done but none of them fit our crack criteria sooooo *shrug*' #like COME ON at least PRETEND you're genuinely checking scientific correctness and not looking for excuses to weed out undesirable results #am also mad about zucker in particular because his is possibly the most famous bullshit study #quite bluntly if you're doing trans research and think 'yeah this one seems reasonable' you. are maybe not well-informed enough for the job #there's just no way you genuinely look at the research with an eye toward accurate science regardless of personal bias #and walk away thinking 'hm that zucker fellow seems reasonable. competent scientists will respect that citation.' #that's one or two steps above doing a review of vaccine science and seriously citing wakefield's mmr-causes-autism study #it doesn't matter what the rest of your review says people are gonna have OPINIONS on that bit #and outside anti-vaxxers most of those opinions will be 'are you actually the most qualified for this because ummmm.' #people who agree with everything else will still think someone more competent could've done a much better job #people who disagree with everything else will point to that as proof you don't know shit and why should we listen to you #anyway i'd love a hugeass trans science review with actual fucking standards hmu if you know of one cause this ain't it #……does tumblr still put a limit on how many tags you can include guess me and my tag essay are about to find out.

[alittlefrenchtree]

George Anon here! Thanks for replying! I loved your answer and you brought up so many good things. I also meant to say that I was not expecting George to be this paramour of ethical decisions or anything like that, but the way he was written makes him look "weak" because it felt like he couldn't do anything on his own or come up with ideas/things on his own most of the time. He remained whiny through the entire thing and that's why I say it feels like he had no growth. The script didn't give him the same ammunition as everybody else, which I know is intentional but it remained like that in all episodes? I don't know if I'm making sense. And characters like Timmy and Luke, as much as people hate the second one, had some relatable qualities (notice how I said relatable not good, lol) that in a way made you root a bit for them so there was impact when something threatened them, but George... Had none. Of course, as an actor, I know Nick had to perform things he's never done before and learn certain skills so it must have been fantastic for him. As a character itself? For your reasons I mentioned, it's one that could've been better.

oooh thank you for the follow up on this conversation. I didn't entirely get what you meant first and you also bring some interesting points.

I 100% agree with you on George being the product of people with their own agenda influencing him and it is hard to know what he really wanted as himself at least for the part of his life when we see on screen.

I guess it's at this point we should have a discussion about what makes a being what they are, about nature vs nurture and it is hint in the show, with George being what Mary made of him. I guess one could argue that it could be the interest of the character itself, and to show how important the place of a favourite was in the life of a royal court and how someone in this position was the constant target of courting and attacks, gifts and traps, most of the time wrapped in the same paper. But you do make a lot of sense in a way that George is more interesting by the things happening to him than by his qualities and faults.

I think it is part because of the writing, part because of what we know of real George himself. They erase some of the things that could have made him more relatable. What comes to mind first for me is his love for arts and his loyalty and his yearning for pretty, fancy things. And, even if I sound like a broken record, the show doesn't show how much James and George loved each other for me. I guess many people watching the show aren't sure if George really loved James or if he was mostly there for power and for the position when there is very little doubt for me. When it is the very reason why the kingdom did go south during George time. Because James loved him so much he gave everything to a man who had no competence to rule and prayed his son to do the same after his death.

But for a long time, George was this man with no real political mind, no agenda known and who was willing to go with the flow and follow than lead himself. Maybe they should have shown a bit of what he becomes after the king's death, even if we see a bit of what this looked like during the trip in Spain and afterwards. It's not pretty but I guess it's not worst than what Charles would have done/did himself? I'm not sure, but what's sure is there was already a lot of incompetent white men in position of power not doing much while patting each other back.

I still think it was an interesting character to play for Nick, and not because of the riding/dancing/frenching/whatever skills. There was still a lot to play with for him as an actor and a lot of emotions to portray on his face -- submission, pride, tenderness, etc. He was a subtle work this Georgie boy, even if he wasn't for everyone and if his stature was relative.

Not so sure if all of my rambling are adding relevant points to the conversation but my point is, George not being that interesting as a person is also part of what makes him interesting for me as a character.

#alft asks #george villiers #mary & george