new

One thing I have been increasingly taking notice of is how e-skepticals - you know, the "science, reason, facts and logic" crowd, people you can easily find at internet communities such as "Fundies Say The Darndest Things", "RationalWiki" and basically most left-wing forums - tend to be extremelly vain, ego-driven and arrogantic. For instance, let's illustrate this with a hypothetical situation: imagine it's scientific consensus that a few million years ago there was a frozen continent named "Lumumba" and that a random man named Edmund contests the existence of Lumumba; according to the skepticals Edmund is a mentally unstable idiot whose brain lives in an alternative reality. At a first glance it could seem fair to regard him as such, he's in disagreement with thousands of individuals who are educated on that field after all, right? However, let's take into account that Edmund currently has no means to verify these claims by himself (like most people) and it basically has no relevance at all to his practical life; having that in mind, one should start to question if it really makes sense to mock and belittle that person. Why must he believe what a bunch of people with diplomas tell him on the matter in order to not be deemed as intelectually inferior? If having an inquisitive mindset is so valued and praised by the "facts and reason" crew then why people like Edmund are supposed to just accept everything scientists say? Why does that say anything about his mental health if believing or not believing in Lumumba causes literally zero negative impact in his life or in the lives of others? The whole issue here comes down to the fact that these skepticals aren't really interested in promoting scientific thinking and skepticism but rather in feeding their own ego and trying to affirme themselves as smart and enlightened in comparison to the "idiotic science-denying bigoted cranky fundies"; that's why you have youtube videos with titles such as "physicist reacts to flat-earthers" and websites such as the ones mentioned at the beggining (RationalWiki and FDST), it's all a huge group session of intellectual masturbation.

And no, I am not strawmaning, that hypothetical situation is based-off something quite similar I saw on a FDST thread: it was a comment that labeled anyone who took Pink Swastika (a book about alleged homosexuals in the Nazi Party and the connection between homossexuality and the fascist ideology) seriously was clinically insane. I mean, really? The view one has about things that happened more than seven decades ago in another continent is really so relevant to the point of determining their mental health? I can kind of understand cases like the mockery of flat-earthers (well, actually I don't, thinking that the Earth is flat causes no damage to anyone, so why not just let them have their belief instead of starting this whole outrage?), since it's actually possible to verify by yourself that the Earth cannot be flat (for example, by looking at the clouds in the sky or realizing that people in other countries are under different time-zones), but having this same attitude towards something so inexact, imprecise, malleable and distant such as the study of the past is an attestation of arrogance.

"You clearly don't understand how science works, the scientific method is extremely rigorous and scientists have to stand scrutiny from their peers in order to have their findings accepted as factual. If you have doubts about a certain topic you can simply study and verify it by yourself" Ok then, I will study it by myself and come to my own conclusions, but until I'm in my right to have doubts and having them instead of just blindly accepting everything the scientific community says (like, let's be honest, everyone does) doesn't make me intelectually inferior to anyone. However, let's not ignore that it would take me years and years of study to "understans" just one specific topic, that I would still have to just accept as true everything that my peers from the hundreds of other fields say (no, you can't seriously expect someone to specialize on everything in a lifetime, come on) and that even in my own field I would have to assume as true the countless premises that it's based upon (for example, an archeologist has to accept this or that method of dating as the most precise so everything he has learned so far can make sense - this example may not be accurate but I just wanted something to illustrate what I meant)

"Yikes, the Dunning-Kruger is strong on this one. Ok Mr. Nuanced Contrarian, so if all doctors said that taking poison is harmful for your well-being and may possibly culminate in your death but a local charlatan claimed it would give you superpowers then you would take both claims as having the same weight just because you can't verify it by yourself first?" No, I would absolutely stand with the doctors on that one; however, that's not because they are science-people but rather due the fact I know from my own experience that poison is harmful (by seeing all the cases of people who took it and experienced negative effects). So yes, I agree that it's stupid to do certain things when you can verify with YOUR OWN EYES that it won't have a good outcome (not vaccinating your kids, for example)

"We know that science is accurate because it works" Why? Where that implication comes from? Just because a certain institution or group of people creates things that work and improve our lives it doesn't necessarily mean their explanations and theories behind their "inventions" are true; if that is the case then the healers of some amazonian tribe are correct in their beliefs about spirits just because some of their cures are effective?

"If you are so against science then why don't you just drop your phone, leave everything behind and go live in the wilderness?" Again, why? Where that implication comes from? Just because I don't accept as true some explanations of reality that the scientific community come up with it doesn't mean that I think everything related to science is evil and that we should reject all of it's inventions

"You are thinking of scientists as 'the others' when in reality they are just people like you. Also, it would make no sense for scientists to try hiding something from the public when in fact they would receive prestige for exposing the findings of their peers as false" Well, what if they are indeed 'the others'? I mean, who knows? There could be a lobby to push for some agenda or a certain conspiracy to cover something up; this may sound like silly conspirationism but you can't really know for sure. As for the "scientists will seek to disprove their peers instead of covering them up" part, it's just an assumption, there is no reason to say that scientists will necessarily have such mindset; it can be true but it could also be true that anyone who questioned the consensus would risk getting ostracized or even losing their diploma and their source of income - I mean, who knows?

"Science may not have the answers for everything but that doesn't mean your cranky nutjob theories are on the same level of accuracy and respectability" Well, that's a "case by case" situation since there are many different "cranky nutjob theories" out there, but to spare some words and space let's say that such affirmation is mostly true. What then? Just because the alternative theories are wrong it doesn't mean all criticism is invalid. Furthermore, you have to have in mind that different worldviews often come from differing premises and assumptions; science, for instance, is based on methodological naturalism, the assumption the explanation for every topic investigated must be a natural/material/non-supernatural one, while a religious person, for example, takes into account the existence of the divine and thus will likely come up with an alternative and supernatural view of the same phenomenon (what you mockingly label as "goddidit"). Yes, these people have a faith they embrace and because of that they think differently, what's your problem with that? Why can't you just let them be? Oh, I forgot: you guys are desperate for self-affirmation and in constant need of feeling smart and enlightened in comparison to the "cranks, bigots and fundies", right?

TIF classification project - open to feedback

…

While we classify TIMs as AGP and HSTS, I've noticed that there is a lack of consistent TIF typology. So, I went ahead and made one.

My sources: almost a year of undercover activity on trans forums (3 different characters, 2 TIFs, 1 TIM), 5 real life run-ins with TIFs (all types), a talk with a female victim of a predatory one, a predatory TIF in my extended family.

Warning: upsetting issues ahead - rape, fetishism, violence, mental illness

Self-hating

Motivated by societal distress caused by being female. Lesbians, tomboys and/or rape victims. The most known and arguably common type. Most of detransitioners come from this group.

Sexuality: Either homosexual (“straight” for them) or so obliterated by trauma so as to be completely non-existent (“asexual”). If not asexual, then either masochists/submissive, or “vanilla” (not perverted).

ID: Most are “men”, but there is a significant minority of those who ID as sexless (agender, nonbinary, neutrois etc.). They don’t really want to become men, as much as they want to stop being women.

Detransition rate: Very high. Feminism empowers non-conformists, lesbians, and victims, and so serves as a safe place for them to go. Furthermore, the general society views “I just wanted to be accepted” as an acceptable feminine motivation. The one exception are those who are 10+ years into it, didn’t get any nasty side effects from procedures, and have a partner and a job. They’ll stick with the devil they know.

Common mental disorders: Anorexia, dysmorphia, anxiety, depression, autism.

Interests: Vary a lot. Plenty of quiet, bookish types. Often some sort of stereotypically masculine sport. Not that many of them are otherkin or furries, but plenty are therians. They often shun stereotypically feminine hobbies they genuinely enjoy and push themselves into things men in their lives do.

Transition: Baggy clothes, short haircuts, binding breasts. Normal male or unisex names. Hormones. Mastectomy and hysterectomy are common, but phallus is usually not constructed. They mumble something about “not good enough yet”, but it’s actually because they want to desex themselves and find penises disgusting.

“Goals”: Either a normal, respectable dude, or a sexless being.

How to approach: Gentle conversation is the best. Affirm that loving women is okay, that any “masculine” interest is cool, that she didn’t deserve her assault/trauma – without calling her a woman outright. She has a lot of baggage attached to that word. Slowly build a friendly relationship, gently bring up side effects of hormones and surgeries. Once you see doubt, direct her towards detransitioners.

Kweer

Motivated by desire to be special and shallow aesthetics of the gender-special movement. Often there is a mild autoandrophilic element (caused by too much yaoi).

Sexuality: Straight (or “uwu gay boys”). Some of them identify as bisexual, but it’s hard to determine if it’s genuine bisexuality or attraction to manly men and she/her “femboys”. Fetish-wise, into a lot of weird stuff. Furries, tentacles, latex, transformation, this sort of thing, often as a switch (both the doer and the target of the act). Sometimes come across as pedophilic, due to inappropriate conduct around children, sharing NSFW information with them etc. This, however, usually comes from the “sex positive” ideology, rather than genuine pedophilia (this is more of a “predatory” thing).

ID: Actually, a minority of them are “men” (I’d say 20-30%). A lot of them call themselves half man, half woman (bigender, genderqueer etc.) or “genderfluid”.

Detransition rate: Complicated. Young and “out” only on tumblr? Will go away. 25+ and a head of a LGBTQRSTUVWXYZ organisation? Not likely to back down. With every IRL thing done in the trans direction (coming out, hormones, surgeries, legal stuff, joining organisations), the chance of detransition drops significantly.

Common mental disorders: Narcissism, borderline, schizotypal, maladaptive daydreaming, sometimes a mild form of psychosis.

Interests: Cartoons, especially anime, drawing, making jewellery (with various obscure flags, to sell on Etsy). Lots of them are otherkin – the more special, the better (fairies, dragons, deities etc.), furries are also well-represented among them. Some of them are self-proclaimed witches or “spiritual” types. Overall they have a very poor relationship with reality.

Transition: Loads of flag patches, colourful hair, either binding without packing or packing without binding (uwu androgyny). Batshit insane names, often neopronouns. Further transition varies, from all the way to “my body is a boy’s body because it belongs to a boy!” Often get tattoos and piercings.

“Goals”: Feminine bottom gay boy, handsome-but-still-pretty top yaoi boy with a hairless body of a Greek god, or a sparkling hermaphroditic alien who is adored by everyone.

How to approach: Don’t feed her delusions. Don’t give her undue attention. Allow her to talk about her gender fluctuations and kin memories, and just go “mhm”. No “omg, you’re so valid”, but no “you’re fucking crazy”. Include her in women-only spaces and events, keep her away from queer spaces/websites. Practical activities, like horse riding or camping are great ideas. The younger she is, the easier for her it will be to shake it off.

Predatory

A complicated, mostly invisible type. Born with psychopathic traits, which causes them to not socialise as female fully (as they lack empathy, enjoy hurting others etc.) and therefore relate to male culture strongly.

Sexuality: Orientation wise, all over the scale, mostly in the middle. Usually call themselves bisexual or “pansexual”, very often “aromantic” (incapable of feeling love). Sadist/dominant, with fetishes like rape, impregnation (with them in the male role), mutilation, cannibalism etc. Often pedos or into bestiality. Two huge elements in this type’s sexuality are what I’d call autohybristophilia – attraction to the image of oneself as a male killer/rapist – and corruption fetish – the fantasy of destroying someone, body and mind, and “remaking” them - they enjoy the thrill of exposing children to fetishes or “cracking eggs”.

ID: Almost all “men”.

Detransition rate: Zero, or at least very low. I've never met one that had any regret or doubt, and I've never met a detransitioner who used to be this type. They seem to more self-assured that the other types, have less interest in fitting in, women usually find their company repulsive or dangerous, mainstream society doesn't find "it got me off" a feminine motivation...

Common mental disorders: Psychopathy, various paraphilias.

Interests: There is always some strong interest in the grotesque/macabre, horror, gore etc. They like people getting hurt, and watch horror films or even real-life gore like most dudes watch porn. Some are otherkin (usually something vague like “monsterkin”, in stark contrast to kweer ones, who have entire characters), but they are less active in the community. Other interests vary wildly, they usually don’t obsessively hide “girly” interests like self-hating ones do.

Transition: Normal male fashion, packing (stuffing underwear) with or without binding. Names might be normal or batshit insane, they are usually less anal about pronouns, whatever they use. Go all the way – hormones, all surgeries etc. Very common of them to take up weightlifting and get tattoos. A lot of them use special huge strapons that transfer sensation or even ejaculate (anatomic autoandrophilia) instead of or before surgery.

“Goals”: The potential to hurt outweights aesthetics. Typically the “ideal body” has huge muscles and a big penis, but it might be very ugly or even nonhuman. Worth mentioning, this is not the same as a revenge fantasy some women (including self-hating TIFs) indulge in. That is “I don’t have power, but if I could hurt the people who hurt me, I’d have power at least over that situation”, this is “I like hurting people, and if I had power, I’d hurt them even more/without consequences”.

How to approach: sigh Tell me if you know. I'd argue it's better not to aproach them - you'll get laughed at at best, pulled into a weird mind game at worst. Stay away from them in real life. Out of 3 I met face to face, two were sex offenders and one beat me up. If one is your child - if she's really young, you might teach her empathy and emotional regulation, otherwise you're probably out of luck.

Notes:

It's possible for one to be two or all types at once. It's possible for one to pretend to be the other for various reasons. It's possible for a non-trans woman to have some traits of one or more type (if she's at risk of transition and/or a TRA ally).

There are two additional factors, both for TIMs and TIFs, - DSD/intersex conditions (which can cause weird socialisation) and actual delusions ("I'm a man on an astral plane" or "I have ovaries, but my doctor can't find them").

Hey, cynical lurkers - none of those are "true trans".

I'm open to constructive criticism.

I can talk about my experiences if you're curious.