A Word from CoC Creator Sandy Petersen

[g33k]

On 7/29/2021 at 2:42 AM, svensson said:

... As things sit right now, I am unaware of any scientific consensus as to when a transgender should undergo the gender reassignment process. As I understand it, there is a big debate among the psychology and medical fields as to when the healthiest time in a person's life is for this radical and irreversible decision to be made. Even psychology is divided in it's definitions of 'transgender' vs. 'transvestitism'. At least, as of DSM 5 anyway. I'm aware that there's a large amount of argument over what's going to be changed for the upcoming DSM 6 on the LBGTQ front ...

I'm gonna raise an objection on this one point; not saying other elements may not ALSO have a problem (or they may not) but I want to unpack this one...

First up... in most cases, I'm VERY much in favor of listening to the medical experts when they speak on their area of expertise.

In this case, however, I will claim that this is ... simply NOT their area.

The medical field is overwhelmingly dominated by white men who are frankly VERY sure of their opinions & of their generally-superior qualifications (and sometimes, honestly, they are correct).  HOWEVER... studies have repeatedly proven that most doctors regularly mis-diagnose and/or fail to diagnose in cases of minorities and women, up to and including statements that have previously been proven false.  I don't know if the transgender community has had similar doctor/patient studies, but I fully expect the existing results will generalize there.

To be blunt:  as best I can tell, the doctors have proven that they are in fact NOT qualified experts in the matter.  Sit with that for a moment; maybe re-read it.

Thus, calling on "medical expertise" for an opinion -- or for "lack of consensus" -- is essentially as meaningless as if you had cited the Heartland Institute.


Taking it one step further:  just the fact that the so-called "experts" have included "transgender" into the DSM largely demonstrates how wrong-headed they (and the consequent mindset) is.
*** NOTE that (as of DSM2 in the early 1970's) "homosexuality" was removed from the DSM.  It simply is not a "mental disorder" to be "diagnosed."  Whither transgender in the current (& official) DSM, and in the (all too fallible) opinions of the medical establishment?

Without ever meaning to or trying to, @svensson, you appear to have grabbed hold of huge fistful's of painful -- and even damaging -- tropes and memes, and normalized them as "just the facts, ma'am."
 

n.b. - hetero cismale writing this, so I may have gotten plenty wrong, myself.  I welcome correction from @Qizilbashwoman or anyone else more informed than I ...

[Bill the barbarian]

Thank you g33k!

Let me try an experiment here, change trans with women or black or...choose your name. How’s it sound now? I have been marching, singing, protesting with these groups all my life and will continue to do so until I die!

Solidarity!

Edited August 1, 2021 by Bill the barbarian

[svensson]

On 7/31/2021 at 10:25 PM, g33k said:

I'm gonna raise an objection on this one point; not saying other elements may not ALSO have a problem (or they may not) but I want to unpack this one...

First up... in most cases, I'm VERY much in favor of listening to the medical experts when they speak on their area of expertise.

In this case, however, I will claim that this is ... simply NOT their area.

The medical field is overwhelmingly dominated by white men who are frankly VERY sure of their opinions & of their generally-superior qualifications (and sometimes, honestly, they are correct).  HOWEVER... studies have repeatedly proven that most doctors regularly mis-diagnose and/or fail to diagnose in cases of minorities and women, up to and including statements that have previously been proven false.  I don't know if the transgender community has had similar doctor/patient studies, but I fully expect the existing results will generalize there.

To be blunt:  as best I can tell, the doctors have proven that they are in fact NOT qualified experts in the matter.  Sit with that for a moment; maybe re-read it.

Thus, calling on "medical expertise" for an opinion -- or for "lack of consensus" -- is essentially as meaningless as if you had cited the Heartland Institute.


Taking it one step further:  just the fact that the so-called "experts" have included "transgender" into the DSM largely demonstrates how wrong-headed they (and the consequent mindset) is.
*** NOTE that (as of DSM2 in the early 1970's) "homosexuality" was removed from the DSM.  It simply is not a "mental disorder" to be "diagnosed."  Whither transgender in the current (& official) DSM, and in the (all too fallible) opinions of the medical establishment?

Without ever meaning to or trying to, @svensson, you appear to have grabbed hold of huge fistful's of painful -- and even damaging -- tropes and memes, and normalized them as "just the facts, ma'am."
 

n.b. - hetero cismale writing this, so I may have gotten plenty wrong, myself.  I welcome correction from @Qizilbashwoman or anyone else more informed than I ...

My comments are based on general news reading... I do not present myself as any kind of expert on the subject. Furthermore I have repeatedly said 'As I understand it' in the course of the discussion. I might be wrong in some of my information. But I base my comments on those by relevant experts, not some clown with a medical license. You don't ask an auto mechanic to fix your marine diesel engine and you don't ask a general practitioner about cancer treatments. When you need an expert, you go find an expert.

That said, I am basing my comments on the American Medical Association's LBGTQ board and news stories therefrom. Same with the psychiatric issues involved with the APA. Not the generalists, but the people who've chosen to specialize in this area and are peer reviewed and qualified to offer opinions for general consumption.

Furthermore, as I have repeatedly said, I am NOT trying to equate transgenders as some mysterious 'them', like they're a terrorist group or something. Each and every transgender is a human being, with a face and a name and a real stake in these discussions. Just like a woman does in breast cancer studies, or black folks have with sickle cell studies. To quote the Founder of the Feast here on this board, "We are all us".

And last but not least, I am NOT trying to present my views as if I'm altogether right. Like most of you, I welcome correction if I'm in error. I forget who said it but a very wise man once said, "My opinion changes just a soon as the facts do."

I've linked an American Medical Association story where they went to SCOTUS advocating for transgender rights as an example of the sources upon which I base my opinions.

https://www.ama-assn.org/delivering-care/population-care/ama-advises-us-supreme-court-transgender-individuals-rights

Edited August 3, 2021 by svensson

[Qizilbashwoman]

what

[Simlasa]

I don't see the point of this thread on this gaming forum.
The person in question is not present. So is the motive just to shout at them in absentia? To announce where we stand on the topic? To bully each other into some sort of consensus (or silence)?
Almost everyone has been civil... but it doesn't seem to me that it has much to do with the actualities of games/gaming.

[g33k]

4 hours ago, Simlasa said:

I don't see the point of this thread on this gaming forum.
The person in question is not present. So is the motive just to shout at them in absentia? To announce where we stand on the topic? To bully each other into some sort of consensus (or silence)?
Almost everyone has been civil... but it doesn't seem to me that it has much to do with the actualities of games/gaming.

Sandy is... kind of a Big Deal, in Chaosium/BRP/CoC context.

It seems like a relevant topic, well within the ambit here at the Inn.

To the extent that he has -- or has not -- displayed some degree of insensitivity and/or ignorance of the topic, and to the extent that his views may represent a relatively common POV among fans of BRP/CoC and Chaosium in general (and that such a POV may be problematic) it seems like there's a fairly broad scope to engage productively.

As you say, it's staying pretty civil, so "productive conversation" looks like a Good Thing(tm).

YMMV, I guess?  I mean... there is the *potential* for it to turn ugly, sure... but also some potentials, which I'd hate to see snipped a-budding.

[Simlasa]

22 minutes ago, g33k said:

Sandy is... kind of a Big Deal, in Chaosium/BRP/CoC context.

His comments were NOT about gaming or Chaosium though... and he is not here, he's not taking part in this discussion. So it's a discussion about him and some non-gaming comments he made... is this really the place where anything like that is going to be solved/fixed?

 

[Lloyd Dupont]

I thought the Inn was to talk about any kind of topic hey?

Nothing will be "resolved" here obviously!
And the title clearly states what it is about, so no one here could really be complaining about wasting time by accident...

But there is one thing you can do @Simlasa is to just ignore this thread! Your problem solved! 🙂

Edited August 4, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[Simlasa]

36 minutes ago, Lloyd Dupont said:

I thought the Inn was to talk about any kind of topic hey?

Nothing will be "resolved" here obviously!
And the title clearly states what it is about, so no one here could really be complaining about wasting time by accident...

But there is one thing you can do @Simlasa is to just ignore this thread! Your problem solved! 🙂

Yeah, you'd think so wouldn't you... but these sorts of things have a knack for spilling out into other areas. I've seen more than one forum eat itself up over politics.

[Lloyd Dupont]

You got a point here....

However, to reply to another post of yours:

Let's say you are a David Bowie fan. Spend your time on David Bowie fan club forums.
Then you learn David Bowie is a drug addict!

Now, these forums are mostly about music. But wouldn't it be a fair point to talk about Drug addiction on said forum at the time hey? What say you to that? 😉 

Edited August 4, 2021 by Lloyd Dupont

[Baragei]

If you're a David Bowie-fan, you'd already know about the drugs. So there is that..

As for the thread itself, there are plenty of places on the internet where you can rail about wrongthink and horrible people who have opinions you disagree with. None of those places are going to do any favours for anyone's mental health, but that's the price you pay if you insist on being silly. This is a gaming forum for a completely different kind of silly. These two kinds of sillyness do not mix well. In the words of another poster upthread; you kick this shit when you see it, or you can wave goodbye to your little club.

 

[svensson]

Folks, we'd be here talking about this if Greg Stafford [MHRIP] said the same sort of thing. Sandy Petersen carries that kind of weight around here. We've ventured into other controversial subject matter in other threads, so a response to Sandy's Twitter shouldn't surprise anyone.

So far, everyone has been polite and reasonable. No curse words are being bandied about, no name calling, no marginalizing. Everyone is treating the subject with the gravity the subject requires. Yes, the discussion has struck a few nerves, but for good reasons and no one has lost their minds and started screaming profanities at anyone.

Most importantly the conversation is beginning to taper off as threads are wont to do. It appears to me that most people who wanted to be part of this conversation have said their piece[s]. So let's all just let it go.

[g33k]

On 8/3/2021 at 7:45 PM, Simlasa said:

 ... I've seen more than one forum eat itself up over politics.

Quote

... you kick this shit when you see it, or you can wave goodbye to your little club.

I've gotta push back on these sentiments, though.

You seem to be dismissing basic human-rights issues as "just politics," and almost explicitly suggesting that trans folk should be kicked to the curb, not welcome in "your little club."

I honestly don't think that's what was meant; but I think it's not an unreasonable reading, and someone who already felt marginalized or attacked would not be unreasonable to read it that way:  as a personal attack.

Even if you think the trans community is completely wrong... they're still making a human-rights claim, not a "political" claim.

(but in general, I agree with others' sentiments, that discussion has been mostly calm & respectful, and doesn't show signs of devolving into flamewar; nor (that I have seen) even spilling into other threads on the Inn, let alone out onto other subforae; that doesn't seem to be an issue (and it can be addressed (such as by mods thread-moving such spillage back to the Inn) when/if that happens).

 

Edited August 5, 2021 by g33k

[Baragei]

..the least you could do was to get your quotes right..  Simlasa said nothing about kicking and clubs, that was me - playing on an upthread assessment of how to deal with select WW2-enthusiasts. The thing about enthusiasts is that they're enthusiastic, and they will more than happily do their thing if you let them. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but the inevitable result will be that the club you're in won't be quite the same club that you joined. Again this is not necessarily a bad thing - up until threads like this.

[g33k]

5 hours ago, Baragei said:

..the least you could do was to get your quotes right..  Simlasa said nothing about kicking and clubs, that was me ...

Sorry; I wrestled with trying to get the multi-quote working, but it didn't work.

 

5 hours ago, Baragei said:

... Again this is not necessarily a bad thing - up until threads like this.

Except -- to be blunt -- there is nothing wrong with a "thread like this."

Gaming does have an ugly underside.  It's also got a lot of "unexamined" issues from us grognards who got comfortable with OUR little niche back in the 70's (or 80's, or 90's, or whatever) and now are *UN*comfortable if other people (outside our assumptions) want to play, too ...  without having to fear being the butt's of dirty jokes, harmful preconceptions, etc.

[simonh]

On 8/1/2021 at 6:25 AM, g33k said:

Taking it one step further:  just the fact that the so-called "experts" have included "transgender" into the DSM largely demonstrates how wrong-headed they (and the consequent mindset) is.
*** NOTE that (as of DSM2 in the early 1970's) "homosexuality" was removed from the DSM.  It simply is not a "mental disorder" to be "diagnosed."  Whither transgender in the current (& official) DSM, and in the (all too fallible) opinions of the medical establishment?

I have no problem that transgenderism is not a mental disorder, and clearly removing homosexuality from the DSM was the right thing to do. I'm a Brit so the DSM isn't directly an issue here but of course the debate here and in the US are closely linked. Sure transgender and homosexual people can seek counselling, but then so can some heterosexuals, and given the social treatment of both groups it's understandable. That doesn't make them disorders.

Transgenderism is a medical issue though in ways that homosexuality is not, because it often involves medical treatments such as medication and surgery. This means medical professionals are going to get involved.

I don't know what productive and appropriate engagement by medical professionals should look like, but just to establish some context, is it fair to say that generally these interventions are successful and lead to better outcomes for people? I hope that's the situation, the cases where things go wrong seem to be a worrying but small minority. So basically can we say that medical treatment is often necessary and appropriate, it's the debate and negotiations around that which get complex and fraught?

Edited August 9, 2021 by simonh