Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: MillCreek on September 02, 2015, 03:59:03 PM
-
http://www.businessinsider.com/ap-parents-seek-halt-to-48-year-olds-gender-reassignment-2015-9?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+businessinsider+%28Business+Insider%29&utm_content=FeedBurner+user+view
I am sure this will meet with the approval of many here.
-
Poor family.
Reading the article, the son has some serious issues. It's not surprising his parents are trying to prevent him from self-destructive choices, especially when others are encouraging him in them.
— including complications from her HIV and Hepatitis C diagnoses —
Seems self-destructive choices are a pattern for him.
-
Poor family.
Reading the article, the son has some serious issues. It's not surprising his parents are trying to prevent him from self-destructive choices, especially when others are encouraging him in them.
Seems self-destructive choices are a pattern for him.
The alternative is the route a trans in DOC custody took - several times. He stopped fighting to get the state to pay for the whack job and did it himself. Court ruled a) he was not crazy and b) the state had to continue the hormone therapy they had been providing for years. He was not completely happy with having just a stump and went at it again to convert Tab A into Slot B as a DIY project. State ended up paying to trim up the edges, which resulted in somewhat of a Slot B. When I left the agency he was very happy prancing around the medium-security facility so they could lock him in a single cell at night).
I'm fairly sure the docs know about the HIV and Hep C. Their willingness to assume the risks of operating should be the only consideration besides what the guy wants to do*. It sounds like daddy is just too humiliated to understand that his little boy is all grown up and feels just fine in frilly lace and lipstick.
stay safe.
* - the above presumes he has the funds/insurance coverage to pay for all of this without tapping into taxpayer or daddy's funds.
-
It sounds like daddy is just too humiliated to understand that his little boy is all grown up and feels just fine in frilly lace and lipstick.
'Cause self-mutilation is the key to happiness.
-
'Cause self-mutilation is the key to happiness.
This again?
I suppose it applies to tattoos and pierced ears (not gauges, but tasteful diamond or pearl studs for instance) as well?
It's not worth arguing/discussing. You have your moral stand, I have mine, and the guy literally in the middle of it all has his (soon to possibly be hers).
stay safe.
-
48 year old with a history of depression, substance abuse and minor learning disabilities is not someone who is incompetent.
She is old enough to do whatever the hell she wants with herself. The parents are being asses.
-
Grown ass man, he can do what he wants.
He's still a guy, I'm not playing the pronoun semantics game anymore.
-
This again?
I suppose it applies to tattoos and pierced ears (not gauges, but tasteful diamond or pearl studs for instance) as well?
It's not worth arguing/discussing. You have your moral stand, I have mine, and the guy literally in the middle of it all has his (soon to possibly be hers).
stay safe.
Um, no. There's no moral stand in what I said. Cutting off healthy genitalia because you think you're a girl is nuts. The man needs help. The only moral angle is that some people hate him so much, they encourage him/enable him to hurt himself.
-
Inability to recognize or accept reality is not exactly a sign of mental health. That said, I don't care to protect him from himself. So long as he is being crazy with his own resources and will accept the results of his decision ( :laugh: I know, I know) then I don't care.
Even so, he is absolutely crazy and I totally understand why his parents are doing what they are doing even if I disagree with it.
-
Someone asked me once recently if "Well, would you support letting someone cut off their arms and attach wings if they felt they should have been born a jet plane"
My response? Am I paying for it? If not, fine.
He can do what he wants with his weiner. I suspect it won't matter for long given his other issues and the abnormally high post-conversion suicide rate.
That said, I refuse to pretend like he's not a complete kook. Gender Identity Disorder / Gender dysmorphia / whatever the current PC term is, is a mental disorder. Period. I refuse to cowtow to this "its perfectly normal" horseshit foisted upon us. not only is it inaccurate, but it's not doing THEM any favors, because NORMAL implies they don't need care, and their suicide rates are high enough already.
-
Who is paying for his self mutilation?
If its his insurance or he is paying out of pocket it's his own business what he does with his genitals.
If it is tax dollars he should be told "sorry" the state (you, me and everyone else) doesn't have a compelling reason to help him pursue his delusion with our tax dollars.
Male chromosomes? born with male genitalia? He is a male.
-
Someone asked me once recently if "Well, would you support letting someone cut off their arms and attach wings if they felt they should have been born a jet plane"
Today they don't cut it off, they 'reshape it'. That way you're not losing all those nerve endings.
He can do what he wants with his weiner. I suspect it won't matter for long given his other issues and the abnormally high post-conversion suicide rate.
The issue is... complicated. The best I can say is that it appears more than the surgury(and hormones and such) don't resolve the increased tendency such people have towards suicide anyways.
Gender Identity Disorder / Gender dysmorphia / whatever the current PC term is, is a mental disorder. Period.
The way I look at it today is that we have a mismatch - and the 'fix' is to make them match. Consider this analogy: We have blue/pink cases, and CPUs that 'prefer' to be in one or the other, hard coded in the CPU.
Which is simpler, changing the CPU, or changing out the case? While changing the CPU is theoretically a much smaller change, it's also one that we don't know how to do - nor do we have the tools to do so even if we did. In comparison, while swapping the case is a much bigger exterior change, it's actually easier than trying to fiddle with the internals of the CPU.
Same with humans - gender reassignment surgury is, on average, a much 'lesser' surgury than trying to muck around with the brain.
because NORMAL implies they don't need care, and their suicide rates are high enough already.
You make a good point, but part of the problem is that insisting they're actually a boy/girl isn't that helpful. I've seen some of the results of when doctors and surgeons decided that the sex of newborns was 'plastic' and made the choice to assign a sex to babies born with damaged/malformed genitals, normally making them female because that was easier surgically.
Fast forward to the child reaching teenager years and insisting that they were a boy despite surguries to convert them to female, female hormones, etc... Lawsuits went around all over the place.
Today's procedure in such cases is often to wait a bit and do a 'behaviorial analysis'. They can figure, quite successfully most of the time, whether the 'natural' state of the child is male or female. No definitive results? Repeat the tests in 6 months or so. Once you have a definitive result, THEN you can schedule the surguries and start hormone treatment.
Male chromosomes? born with male genitalia? He is a male.
Just curious, but what do you consider a XY person with complete androgen insensitivity? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome)
-
It very well may be a mental disorder. but it's a disorder nonetheless
And our current trend towards "nothing's wrong it's totally normal, gender is fluid, etc" is making things worse. Because reassignment is happening more often and people are coming to the decision more "lightly"
Oh, and if they express regret later? They're ostracized and marginalized by the inclusive, loving LGBTWTFBBQ community.
-
Someone asked me once recently if "Well, would you support letting someone cut off their arms and attach wings if they felt they should have been born a jet plane"
My response? Am I paying for it? If not, fine.
He can do what he wants with his weiner. I suspect it won't matter for long given his other issues and the abnormally high post-conversion suicide rate.
That said, I refuse to pretend like he's not a complete kook. Gender Identity Disorder / Gender dysmorphia / whatever the current PC term is, is a mental disorder. Period. I refuse to cowtow to this "its perfectly normal" horse***t foisted upon us. not only is it inaccurate, but it's not doing THEM any favors, because NORMAL implies they don't need care, and their suicide rates are high enough already.
I mostly agree with this. I don't want the government involved, except that any .gov medical licensing or certification should be revoked for anyone who performs such things on the poor, poor people that were confused enough to ask for it. Medical NGOs should cut all ties with such quack doctors. Other than that, the confused is welcome to make whatever arrangements he may.
On the personal level, these people need friends and family to keep them from self-harm, and not encourage them.
-
On the personal level, these people need friends and family to keep them from self-harm, and not encourage them.
So all the counseling and time spent with both surgical and head-shrinking docs talking about both short and long term effects and the odds of experiencing any of those before any procedure (including hormonal) is scheduled does not count?
Are you equating "not encourage them" with actively discouraging them? Because based on the outcome, about 50% of those who get married could have used some "not encourage" if not outright discouragement.
stay safe.
-
Just curious, but what do you consider a XY person with complete androgen insensitivity? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity_syndrome)
Female genitalia? female.
For those who were born partially androgen insensitive is where things get complicated.
Instead of defaulting to surgery and putting them in a male/female gender box why can't society allow androgynous people be androgynous? The left is guilty of the same thing the right is accused of, encouraging the androgynous to be one or the other.
There have always been androgynous "females" and male "eunuchs". There should be no societal shame heaped upon those who were born androgynous. If as adults they want to choose surgery and live as a man or a woman they should have that choice, on their own dime.
What I'm opposed to is the attempted breakdown of gender roles for the vast majority in our culture. It is Orwellian in scope and is the very definition of confusion.
androgen insensitivity = the exception that proves the rule
-
Grown ass man, he can do what he wants.
He's still a guy, I'm not playing the pronoun semantics game anymore.
This. All of this.
-
It is completely understandable that parents would seek to keep their child from harming himself. How many stories have we read of family going through several kinds of hell to keep one of their own from hurting themselves in one way or another? This is a normal, reasonable response of moral and socialized humans toward blood relations demonstrating mental illness.
I am reminded of a George Carlin inspired meme:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F8VFMgBr.jpg&hash=26b112c218fd309ee9369d8d70ac93059adc7b69)
* Cut yourself about the arms a bit and maybe draw blood, and it is a warning sign of serious problems (http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/cutting-self-harm-signs-treatment).
* Mutilate beyond repair or natural function perfectly healthy generative organs, and it is a wonderful thing that only sex-obsessed blue noses would question.
"Self-Harm: It is awful unless you're really serious about it."
Insert sex into an issue and half the participants go stupid and insane. Reason goes out the window, along with compassion and any wisdom gleaned from interaction with reality.
-
48 year old with a history of depression, substance abuse and minor learning disabilities is not someone who is incompetent.
Maybe not, but it is someone I'd strongly doubt has the tens of thousands of dollars of money they earned themselves laying around to pay for all this.
-
This again?
I suppose it applies to tattoos and pierced ears (not gauges, but tasteful diamond or pearl studs for instance) as well?
It's not worth arguing/discussing. You have your moral stand, I have mine, and the guy literally in the middle of it all has his (soon to possibly be hers).
stay safe.
Thank you. It is about time that the moralists among us recognize that there are genetic mistakes --or overlaps in human characteristics, if you will.
Oh, and that they should mind their own damned business.
Terry
-
Thank you. It is about time that the moralists among us recognize that there are genetic mistakes --or overlaps in human characteristics, if you will.
yeah, there are. Hard cases, and few of them.
-
Thank you. It is about time that the moralists among us recognize that there are genetic mistakes --or overlaps in human characteristics, if you will.
Oh, and that they should mind their own damned business.
Terry
Hey, um, Terry? You're the one moralizing here. You're telling us that what we ought to (not) say and do.
You're also making some particularly poor assumptions about who knows what.
Your horse. It is high.
-
Instead of defaulting to surgery and putting them in a male/female gender box why can't society allow androgynous people be androgynous? The left is guilty of the same thing the right is accused of, encouraging the androgynous to be one or the other.
That's actually pretty close to the current position. It's just that you don't have to wait until they're an 'adult' to figure out whether they're going to want to be male or female.
Basically they can do some observational tests/observations, apply behavioral analysis and figure out whether out you're male or female 'in your head'.
That being said, I think that they have a high probability of detecting those who will be trans, true trans, but the problem is that you'd need to test 'everybody' and said testing is expensive in time and that means money given that we're looking at hours of a rather specific sort of physician. Right now it's mostly done by college professors as a 'side line' from what I've seen, and is only considered worth it in cases like we're talking about, where there's physical anomalies that throw which side of the fence they 'should' be on in doubt.
Getting them into their 'self-chosen' gender role/shape as early as practical helps on the suicide/health angle later in life.
-
That's actually pretty close to the current position. It's just that you don't have to wait until they're an 'adult' to figure out whether they're going to want to be male or female.
Basically they can do some observational tests/observations, apply behavioral analysis and figure out whether out you're male or female 'in your head'.
That being said, I think that they have a high probability of detecting those who will be trans, true trans, but the problem is that you'd need to test 'everybody' and said testing is expensive in time and that means money given that we're looking at hours of a rather specific sort of physician. Right now it's mostly done by college professors as a 'side line' from what I've seen, and is only considered worth it in cases like we're talking about, where there's physical anomalies that throw which side of the fence they 'should' be on in doubt.
Getting them into their 'self-chosen' gender role/shape as early as practical helps on the suicide/health angle later in life.
Your faith in pseudo-science is a bit unsettling. These are the same sort of folk who think self harm is a problem to be addressed and ended if superficial, but super-peachy if severe and mutilating.
Giving these sort of morally and scientifically un-moored folk power or influence is a big mistake.
-
Firethorn -
Presuming the driving force of "superficial" and "severe and mutilating" self harm are the same you might have a valid point. However, it seems that "superficial" activity is related to the temporary amelioration of negative emotions while the "severe and mutilating" activity is more directed at achieving a permanent end. That the latter has a less than certainty of achieving that goal is not relevant.
Those that cut or burn themselves do not expect the act to permanently solve whatever is causing them to feel distress. Those seeking gender reassignment surgery have an expectation that it will provide a permanent cure. Is my understanding of this inaccurate?
stay safe.
-
Your faith in pseudo-science is a bit unsettling. These are the same sort of folk who think self harm is a problem to be addressed and ended if superficial, but super-peachy if severe and mutilating.
Only if you determine sex re-assignment surgery to be 'severe and mutilating'.
Giving these sort of morally and scientifically un-moored folk power or influence is a big mistake.
The ones I've met weren't. They were rather serious on the moral fronts, one guy recounted how he was initially involved in one of the old 'just pick one' cases where they picked the wrong one... Well, he's still involved even today, working to correct the damage.
vaskidmark - you put my name down, but it seems to be more a response to roo_ster. Can you clarify?
I agree with you - cutting and such is normally a temporary 'fix' to their problem, while yes, gender-reassignment is intended to be permanent. That being said, as I understand it they're so good with the surgeries today that a non-expert can't tell that the person has had it and was once the opposite sex once everything's completed.
There are some weird things where a person will try to cut their own limbs off thinking they 'don't belong', but that results in a permanent disability, but I think that both men and women will get upset if you try to imply that their form is a disability.
-
The dude sounds like a total head case, but if he wants to have his genitalua turned inside out, I'm good with it. I'm even gooder about his parents outing his hiv and hep status in a news story. The dude is a walking public health hazard.
-
Thank you. It is about time that the moralists among us recognize that there are genetic mistakes --or overlaps in human characteristics, if you will.
Oh, and that they should mind their own damned business.
Terry
Who pays?
If it causes my insurance or taxes to go up I have a say. Keep your paws out of my wallet.
-
.
vaskidmark - you put my name down, but it seems to be more a response to roo_ster. Can you clarify?
.
You are correct - should have attributed the comment to roo_ster. My eyes seem to have wandered to your name at the head of his post where he was quoting you. Please accept my apology.
stay safe.
-
You are correct - should have attributed the comment to roo_ster. My eyes seem to have wandered to your name at the head of his post where he was quoting you. Please accept my apology.
Not a problem, it just had me scratching my head for a bit.
-
Only if you determine sex re-assignment surgery to be 'severe and mutilating'.
Do we have to play word games? Are we 9 years old around here?
se•vere (səˈvɪər)
adj. -ver•er, -ver•est.
1. harsh; unnecessarily extreme: severe criticism.
2. serious or stern in manner or appearance.
3. grave; critical: a severe illness.
4. rigidly restrained in style, taste, etc.; plain; austere.
5. of an extreme, intense, or violent character or nature: severe thunderstorms.
6. difficult to endure, perform, fulfill, etc.: a severe test of strength.
7. rigidly exact; demanding: severe standards.
mu•ti•late (ˈmyut lˌeɪt)
v.t. -lat•ed, -lat•ing.
1. to injure or disfigure by removing or irreparably damaging parts: to mutilate a painting.
2. to deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or other essential part.
The surgery is both severe and mutilating as understood by rational folk not playing word games.
The ones I've met weren't. They were rather serious on the moral fronts, one guy recounted how he was initially involved in one of the old 'just pick one' cases where they picked the wrong one... Well, he's still involved even today, working to correct the damage.
Scientifically Unmoored
Cross-dressers, transsexuals, or whatever you want to call them that have the surgery have a greater likelihood of suicide and self-reported unhappiness than those who do not. The institution and doctors who pioneered the surgery have now disavowed it as harmful. Were sex change surgery a new drug, it would not be approved by the FDA.
But, like I wrote above, many folk toss reason, sense, and morality out the window at the first mention of sex.
Morally Unmoored
It is not morally good and right to further a mentally disturbed person's desire for severe and mutilating self-harm that will forever destroy the natural function of their body.
The disgusting doctors who do this sort of thing are no better, morally, than Morgan Spurlock paying derelicts to eat dog *expletive deleted*it in exchange for money they will buy drugs or booze with.
...as I understand it they're so good with the surgeries today that a non-expert can't tell that the person has had it and was once the opposite sex once everything's completed.
Don't be so gullible.
These folks have no business having any influence or power.
-
Do we have to play word games? Are we 9 years old around here?
Apparently? Seriously, one can consider heart surgery extreme, but I doubt any here would argue it's necessity. The brain surgery that attempts to treat epilepsy by having the connections between the right and left side severed is extreme.
Gender reassignment surgery, on the other hand, is 'merely' plastic surgery. Techniques pioneered for reconstruction after accidents, to 'correct' those born intersex(or whatever the current term is), and such has given us the ability to do a 'really good' job at it.
There are plenty of 'less intact' males and females out there, for various unfortunate reasons.
The surgery is both severe and mutilating as understood by rational folk not playing word games.
Are you a surgeon? No? How do you know it's severe? How do you know it's mutilating? Do you consider being female being mutilated? Do you consider being male mutilated?
Scientifically Unmoored
Cross-dressers, transsexuals, or whatever you want to call them that have the surgery have a greater likelihood of suicide and self-reported unhappiness than those who do not.
Including cross-dressers in there actually weakens your point.
The institution and doctors who pioneered the surgery have now disavowed it as harmful. Were sex change surgery a new drug, it would not be approved by the FDA.
Do you mean this study? (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.3109/00048678109159409) If so, I suggest noting the date(1981).
Other studies show mostly positive results with modern methods:
Factors Associated with Satisfaction or Regret Following Male-to-Female Sex Reassignment Surgery (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1024086814364)
Adolescents With Gender Identity Disorder Who Were Accepted or Rejected for Sex Reassignment Surgery: A Prospective Follow-up Study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S089085670960397X)
Regrets After Sex Reassignment Surgery (http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J056v05n04_05) - Under 2% regret; 'poor surgical results' one of the main reasons. Let's face it, surgeons mess up even routine surgery on occasion.
But, like I wrote above, many folk toss reason, sense, and morality out the window at the first mention of sex.
Be careful that you do not do so as well.
Morally Unmoored
It is not morally good and right to further a mentally disturbed person's desire for severe and mutilating self-harm that will forever destroy the natural function of their body.
Correct, but what does that have to do with reassignment surgury?
-
How do you know it's mutilating? Do you consider being female being mutilated? Do you consider being male mutilated?
facepalm Obviously being female isn't "mutilation." Until, of course, you replace her female organs with male ones. Are you going to keep pretending you don't understand that?
Yes, you are.
-
Are you going to keep pretending you don't understand that?
Yes, you are.
Are you going to keep making fallacious arguments?
Yes, you are.
Specifically, other than shooting blanks(and plenty of real men/women are doing that for various reasons, including deliberate choice), at this point they're 'fully functional'. I even posted some links, though I think I dropped the sex one. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-005-7926-5) They're quite successful at having sexual encounters after the operation, and are generally quite happy with the results. So it's not mutilation, or at least not extreme mutilation.
Hmm... Increased suicide rate study (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0016885). Buried in the study: "In line with the increased mortality from suicide, sex-reassigned individuals were also at a higher risk for suicide attempts, though this was not statistically significant for the time period 1989–2003." and for being convicted for 'any crime or violent crime' "only significant in the group who underwent sex reassignment before 1989."
However, reading it, it's more that transexuals, transitioned or not, are more likely to commit suicide - the surgery itself results in changes, but the link to suicide is still weak.
Here's how I consider it: For at least some individuals, the operation is the least bad option.
Anyways, it looks like we're operating from different presuppositions. Which is why I'm pulling studies out on the after-effects. Against those, just repeating 'MUTILATION' doesn't do much.
-
If he commits suicide 6 months after surgery, who here is going to feel a loss?
-
If he commits suicide 6 months after surgery, who here is going to feel a loss?
If he commits suicide 6 years after surgery, who here is going to feel a loss?
Is there even a vague suggestion that some time after he is blocked from doing what he wants to do he will come up with the cure for the common cold, or any form of cancer, or bring peace and tolerance to the Middle East or Ferguson, Mo., or even not only balance the federal budget but eliminate the debt burden? Maybe save the life of some little kid who will grow up to do any of those things?
Some of us do not subscribe as forcefully as you to the "loss of a sparrow"* notion.
stay safe.
* - Perhaps not the best reference to the notion but it's the one I came up with. I have little doubt that anyone will have difficulty understanding the meaning and intent.
-
Are you going to keep making fallacious arguments?
Yes, you are.
Specifically, other than shooting blanks(and plenty of real men/women are doing that for various reasons, including deliberate choice), at this point they're 'fully functional'. I even posted some links, though I think I dropped the sex one. (http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-005-7926-5) They're quite successful at having sexual encounters after the operation, and are generally quite happy with the results. So it's not mutilation, or at least not extreme mutilation.
I don't argue about sexual/gender matters. I inform deniers.
You have described a successful mutilation - a man or woman successfully mutilated until they no longer function as designed, even if they appear to function as something else.
That is not an argument. It is an explanation. That is all. You can go spout your insanity some more.
-
Morally Unmoored
So glad we have you to be the arbiter of all that is moral and good. What would my moral compass do without you?
-
As long as I don't have to pay for it, either up front or for the mess made after, I don't care what someone does or has done with their dangly bits.
But I do have an opinion about the folks that want to get the remodeling work done and the medical practitioners that do such work and it isn't a very high one.
-
I frankly have no problem with a family moving to stop a mentally ill family member from permanently and severely mutilating themselves.
I won't pretend there are a lot of good answers, because it's a shitty situation. But I have no objections to the family trying. I'd have no reservations with them succeeding either if it was warranted.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
As long as I don't have to pay for it, either up front or for the mess made after, I don't care what someone does or has done with their dangly bits.
But I do have an opinion about the folks that want to get the remodeling work done and the medical practitioners that do such work and it isn't a very high one.
No no no. Rooster said it's immoral and you should care.
-
The only moral issue I have with it is if they are forcing me to pay for it at the point of a gun i.e. -taxes.
-
The only moral issue I have with it is if they are forcing me to pay for it at the point of a gun i.e. -taxes.
Which is why I'm fully and wholly against trans surgeries for anyone on public assistance, in jail, or in the military.
-
I frankly have no problem with a family moving to stop a mentally ill family member from permanently and severely mutilating themselves.
I won't pretend there are a lot of good answers, because it's a shitty situation. But I have no objections to the family trying. I'd have no reservations with them succeeding either if it was warranted.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
What about the precedent set?
If a family could stop this, what else could they stop, in the name of "saving" an adult child from personal decisions? Even if you leave it at medical decisions alone, you've just set a downright dangerous precedent for anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with their parents.
-
What about the precedent set?
If a family could stop this, what else could they stop, in the name of "saving" an adult child from personal decisions? Even if you leave it at medical decisions alone, you've just set a downright dangerous precedent for anyone who doesn't see eye to eye with their parents.
Sssshhhh, Liz. It's Immoral. Because rooster said so.
-
I really don't get why suicide rates always come up in this never ending war of righteousness.
Is it really a shocker that a socially disenfranchised group (regardless of if they are right or wrong) is going to have a higher suicide rate than the general run of everyone else?
As long as you are not paying for it, it's not your business what some other person does to themselves.
And I'm pretty sure there is some bit in the bible where Jesus told ya'll Christians to worry about your own *expletive deleted*it and leave other people alone.
(And as a total aside, but it comes to mind everytime this subject comes up, am I the only one around here who thinks the laws regarding suicide should be struck from the books?)
-
Sssshhhh, Liz. It's Immoral. Because rooster said so.
I really wish I was doing something immoral by christian standards, as we speak, but I can only pull on Morman standards *guzzles more diet Pepsi and puffs on a ciggerette*
Ahhh!!! The joys of being an Immoral American!
-
I really don't get why suicide rates always come up in this never ending war of righteousness.
Is it really a shocker that a socially disenfranchised group (regardless of if they are right or wrong) is going to have a higher suicide rate than the general run of everyone else?
I think the claim (which I have not verified) is that the already high suicide rate gets worse after the surgery. Thus the surgery is a net negative to the mental well being of these people.
-
I think the claim (which I have not verified) is that the already high suicide rate gets worse after the surgery. Thus the surgery is a net negative to the mental well being of these people.
Except you can't really get proper stats on the ones who haven't had the surgery. The ones who have it, it's generally recorded and, even if it's not, it can be identified by medical evaluation after death.
The ones who don't have surgery, you are completely reliant on their honesty in identifying their various issues in previous statements or physical evidence that is properly assessed after death.
-
It doesn't really matter whether there are more or less suicides or whether there is even more or less "happiness".
What matters is the cultural Marxist narrative of gender fluidity and all the other related nonsense.
-
And I'm pretty sure there is some bit in the bible where Jesus told ya'll Christians to worry about your own *expletive deleted*it and leave other people alone.
Luke 6:42, I think. It's also in Matthew 7. ;)
-
It doesn't really matter whether there are more or less suicides or whether there is even more or less "happiness".
What matters is the cultural Marxist narrative of gender fluidity and all the other related nonsense.
Okay, and when we are talking about those issues, I'm sure you may have some valid arguments.
But that's not what we are talking here!
This isn't about cultural acceptance. It's not about right or wrong decisions made by an individual. It's not even about the gender wars.
It's about a legally compatant adult being legally allowed to do whatever the hell they want to their body.
Absolutely nothing else is relevant in this case. Nothing.
-
Okay, and when we are talking about those issues, I'm sure you may have some valid arguments.
But that's not what we are talking here!
This isn't about cultural acceptance. It's not about right or wrong decisions made by an individual. It's not even about the gender wars.
It's about a legally compatant adult being legally allowed to do whatever the hell they want to their body.
Absolutely nothing else is relevant in this case. Nothing.
There is plenty else relevant.
The government has no business forcing folks to treat someone as one thing when they are something else. There will be legal ramifications forcing people to violate their conscience if the loony left has their way.
Also, doctors with zero scruples should not be allowed to prey on mentally ill people.
-
There is plenty else relevant.
The government has no business forcing folks to treat someone as one thing when they are something else. There will be legal ramifications forcing people to violate their conscience if the loony left has their way.
Also, doctors with zero scruples should not be allowed to prey on mentally ill people.
Where is the government forcing someone to treat someone else differently in this case?
Secondly, are you a psychologist and have you reviewed the files on this patient, and therefore, can make a definite answer in regards to their mental health and compentacy?
-
Where is the government forcing someone to treat someone else differently in this case?
Secondly, are you a psychologist and have you reviewed the files on this patient, and therefore, can make a definite answer in regards to their mental health and compentacy?
It's already happening in the battles of the bathrooms taking place around the country.
You're right, Bruce/Kaitlyn is every bit the woman you are!
'cause the "doctors" say so :lol:
-
It's already happening in the battles of the bathrooms taking place around the country.
You're right, Bruce/Kaitlyn is every bit the woman you are!
'cause the "doctors" say so :lol:
"In this case"
You need to go read that thread of monkeylegs. Seriously, "in this case". Should I bold it?
Second, I am not a doctor and I don't really care wth Jenner is. I have no need to have my womanhood qualified by some has been celebrity attention whore. His/her doing/being/saying what he/she has no affect on my feminity. If anything, I guess I think she is a lucky bitch. She's not currently exhausted, cranky and cramping because of biology.
-
"In this case"
You need to go read that thread of monkeylegs. Seriously, "in this case". Should I bold it?
Second, I am not a doctor and I don't really care wth Jenner is. I have no need to have my womanhood qualified by some has been celebrity attention whore. His/her doing/being/saying what he/she has no affect on my feminity. If anything, I guess I think she is a lucky bitch. She's not currently exhausted, cranky and cramping because of biology.
You mean "He".
I want to agree with your position, but then both of us would be wrong. (even if you're fundamentally right)
I'd love for it to be about an adult doing whatever they want with their own body, but it's not. If you believe that, you're naive and it's cute, but not helpful.
-
Yea, this *expletive deleted*it doesn't happen in a vacuum and it resonates outward.
In this case he wants to be "made" into a woman and when he gets his way he'll want to force everyone around him to treat him as such, or else...
-
Yeah, that's me. Cute and naive.
I couldn't possibly understand the ramifications of the current efforts of the transgender community to force acceptance.
I also cannot do anything to stop it. Neither can you two. The beauty of it is, neither can they, and the backlash in this one will only be lesser than they current racial tensions because they don't have the numbers to affect such chaos.
Both of you need some moral fortitude. You sit and whine "oh, but if we let them do this (which is perfectly legit) than they'll do that (which isn't) and we MUST STOP THEM!!" and never mind that you are both old enough and (supposedly) mature enough to figure out how to sepperate the difference between something that affects you and something that doesn't.
You want to rant and rail? Do it when the specifics affect YOU, personally. That's when you draw the line.
You keep drawing it before that point and you loose all *expletive deleted*ing credibility. No one is going to listing to you when the fight gets personal, because all you've done is establish that you think transgender people are ewwy. And nobody cares about people who are so juvinial that they base their political stance on what they think is ewwy.
-
Still waiting for something more than your opinion....
But feel free to rant on, even if you're currently encumbered by your biology, it doesn't get you a pass. (which is hilarious, because Bruce's Caitlin's chemistry doesn't have a single thing in common with yours. HE isn't encumbered by said hormones)
-
She is old enough to do whatever the hell she wants with herself. The parents are being asses.
I suppose.
But "she" is not really a "she" until "she" has had the surgery. Until then, "she" is just a transvestite he.
-
Still waiting for something more than your opinion....
But feel free to rant on, even if you're currently encumbered by your biology, it doesn't get you a pass.
My opinion on Jenner wasn't about getting me a pass.
I don't need an excuse to be a bitch.
Apparently, you don't either.
Again, when it infringes on your rights, then you complain.
The possibility (and I agree, this is going to be a fight. Hell, it already is a fight) of them infringing on your rights in the future does not give you to infringe on their rights, ever.
Nobody is forcing you to do jack.
-
I suppose.
But "she" is not really a "she" until "she" has had the surgery. Until then, "she" is just a transvestite he.
I consider it to be polite to use the preferred pronoun of the person in question under general circumstances (as long as I can easily identify what that pronouns is)
I only use the technical pronoun or combined pronoun when I am trying to discuss specifics or I am intentionally being rude.
I apologies in advance if my personal opinions on polite behavior regarding transgender persons infringes on anyone's rights. ;/
-
My opinion on Jenner wasn't about getting me a pass.
I don't need an excuse to be a bitch.
Apparently, you don't either.
Again, when it infringes on your rights, then you complain.
The possibility (and I agree, this is going to be a fight. Hell, it already is a fight) of them infringing on your rights in the future does not give you to infringe on their rights, ever.
Nobody is forcing you to do jack.
'
Ok then...
You win. The amount of circular non-logic here is past me even attempting to follow.
-
It's already happening in the battles of the bathrooms taking place around the country.
I must be going to the wrong bathrooms. Never seen or heard a battle in one, just farts and running water... =D
-
'
Ok then...
You win. The amount of circular non-logic here is past me even attempting to follow.
Explain how this is circular? Please, do.
Seriously, I don't get how you don't get this.
Person does thing to themselves. That is their right.
Person forces you to do thing. That is not their right. Infringes on your rights.
Explain how transgender person in OP getting surgery infringes on your rights (assuming that she pays for it out of her own pocket)
Explain why her parents have the right to tell her that she can't do this thing and how that affects you, personally.
And, because she may or may not use this to attempt to force public acceptance of her personal choices in the future doesn't count.
Because it doesn't, and when she does, than you have something to fight over.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ_WM
-
I must be going to the wrong bathrooms. Never seen or heard a battle in one, just farts and running water... =D
I seriously don't get the fuss on this one.
I use public restrooms A LOT (genetically small bladder equals means I identify bathroom locations the same way paranoid people locate the exits) and, I'm telling you, on the ladies side, there is nothing exciting to see. Maybe on the dudes side, since you manly men pee in the open, but on the woman's side, it's all closed doors and the anemic tinkles of woman trying to pee quietly.
-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZhuuoWENeQ
-
I must be going to the wrong bathrooms. Never seen or heard a battle in one, just farts and running water... =D
What? No sword fights?
-
Do Yankees use white cornmeal or yellow?
-
Do Yankees use white cornmeal or yellow?
I don't care if you are a Yankee or not, you had better not feed your dog any cornmeal, or you are Satan.
-
...I couldn't possibly understand the ramifications of the current efforts of the transgender community to force acceptance...
Both of you need some moral fortitude. You sit and whine "oh, but if we let them do this (which is perfectly legit) than they'll do that (which isn't) and we MUST STOP THEM!!" and never mind that you are both old enough and (supposedly) mature enough to figure out how to sepperate the difference between something that affects you and something that doesn't.
You want to rant and rail? Do it when the specifics affect YOU, personally. That's when you draw the line.
You keep drawing it before that point and you loose all *expletive deleted*ing credibility. No one is going to listing to you when the fight gets personal, because all you've done is establish that you think transgender people are ewwy. And nobody cares about people who are so juvinial that they base their political stance on what they think is ewwy.
We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.
- George Orwell
Other than the occasional rare cases of androgyny there are two sexes, male and female. Once again let me state, the rare exceptions prove the rule.
All of your bloviating, ranting and raving doesn't change that fact.
I will continue to speak out out against those who want to upend all of culture and society to implement their insane cultural Marxist delusions.
Every case like this that is splashed across the media is for propaganda and the social conditioning of the bourgeois. The proletariat are already lost. The middle class and their values must be destroyed.
There is a term for those that promote this type of confusion without understanding the underlying reason it has been introduced into society.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot <- read it, it fits
-
I consider it to be polite to use the preferred pronoun of the person in question under general circumstances (as long as I can easily identify what that pronouns is)
You don't need to apologize. I just don't happen to agree with you. A male can't just "self-identify" as a woman any more than that white woman can "self-identify" as a black woman. I'm actually being very lenient recognizing the surgery as marking a switch, because the surgery doesn't alter the body chemistry or the DNA.
My view is that I don't think it's polite for people to claim to be something other than what they are, and I don't think it's polite for men to use the ladies' room.
-
Other than the occasional rare cases of androgyny there are two sexes, male and female. Once again let me state, the rare exceptions prove the rule.
Well, maybe there are more exceptions to the rule than you think. Roughly speaking, you have the brain and the body.
Turns out that the brain can have a gender, and that sometimes it can be the opposite gender from the body. Call it an 'invisible' case of androgyny. Because these types can usually say that they 'should' have been the opposite sex from even before puberty.
Please note that these types are NOT 'Gender-fluid' or the other crap I've seen strewn about. There are a few of that type out there, but they're generally even more screwed in the head and/or simply seeking attention.
If anything, true transgender types support the binary sex theory - they don't want to be 'in between' - they want to be ONE sex.
All of your bloviating, ranting and raving doesn't change that fact.
I'd be careful about these statements, you've been ranting and such as bit yourself.
I will continue to speak out out against those who want to upend all of culture and society to implement their insane cultural Marxist delusions.
Shouldn't we then continue to speak out against mad conspiracy theories? I doubt most transsexuals are marxists. Instead, this statement seems to be a conspiracy theory on YOUR part.
What the hell does sexual reassignment surgery for willing, even eager, people have to do with destroying the middle class?
I'm actually being very lenient recognizing the surgery as marking a switch, because the surgery doesn't alter the body chemistry or the DNA.
No, the hormones they're on for at least 6 months before the surgery change the chemistry, and there are XY females out there and (much fewer) XX Males out there that haven't needed a single bit of surgery.
Personally, I'm for them switching bathrooms when they can pass as their chosen sex under casual scrutiny, not the removal of underwear. Or are you in the habit of using toilets where there's no stalls?
I don't think it's polite for men to use the ladies' room.
Is this possibly the core problem? Concerned for the 'purity' of the women-folk? You do realize that there are Female to Male types out there, right?
Hell, one 'fairly masculine' 100% natural female was assaulted some time ago, people thought she was a trannie. The male security guard followed her into the women's restroom and physically assaulted her before hauling her out. I imagine he was a bit shocked when he was hauled to jail instead.
-
Well, maybe there are more exceptions to the rule than you think. Roughly speaking, you have the brain and the body.
Turns out that the brain can have a gender, and that sometimes it can be the opposite gender from the body. Call it an 'invisible' case of androgyny. Because these types can usually say that they 'should' have been the opposite sex from even before puberty.
Please note that these types are NOT 'Gender-fluid' or the other crap I've seen strewn about. There are a few of that type out there, but they're generally even more screwed in the head and/or simply seeking attention.
If anything, true transgender types support the binary sex theory - they don't want to be 'in between' - they want to be ONE sex.
I'd be careful about these statements, you've been ranting and such as bit yourself.
Shouldn't we then continue to speak out against mad conspiracy theories? I doubt most transsexuals are marxists. Instead, this statement seems to be a conspiracy theory on YOUR part.
What the hell does sexual reassignment surgery for willing, even eager, people have to do with destroying the middle class?
No, the hormones they're on for at least 6 months before the surgery change the chemistry, and there are XY females out there and (much fewer) XX Males out there that haven't needed a single bit of surgery.
Personally, I'm for them switching bathrooms when they can pass as their chosen sex under casual scrutiny, not the removal of underwear. Or are you in the habit of using toilets where there's no stalls?
Is this possibly the core problem? Concerned for the 'purity' of the women-folk? You do realize that there are Female to Male types out there, right?
Hell, one 'fairly masculine' 100% natural female was assaulted some time ago, people thought she was a trannie. The male security guard followed her into the women's restroom and physically assaulted her before hauling her out. I imagine he was a bit shocked when he was hauled to jail instead.
A lot of your nonsense above is not based on actual biological science. It is a bunch of theory coming out of the social "sciences".
What does cultural Marxism have to with this? The social "sciences" are dominated by cultural Marxists; so all the crazy gender and racial theories we are being bombarded with are being presented as "science".
Fundamentally changing America by infiltrating and controlling its institutions is and has been the cultural Marxist modus operandi all along. It isn't so a much a conspiracy as it is a battle between those who hold different presuppositions about the nature of humankind and our institutions.
The strength of western culture has historically been drawn from family, tribe and nation with its institutions in turn promoting strengthening those ties. The cultural Marxists are those who have been working successfully to undermine those foundations.
The battle has actually been going on longer than even Marx but his acolytes were some of the first to codify it and those that who have come after have not rested in their work.
Our institutions no longer strengthen traditional family but undermine families in multiple ways, the destruction of gender roles included. The core principles of the founding of our nation have been set aside and replaced with radical egalitarianism. The whole melting pot/we are the world lie is only true when used to attack or weaken the power of the majority culture. Minority cultures are celebrated and held up as not only equal but superior to the traditional majority culture. Religion, one of the final bulwarks against the cultural Marxist followers of scientism is rotting out from inside as cultural Marxist ideas are used as a filter to reinterpret Christianity. It is now safe for our government to take a confrontational and adversarial role against Christianity without consequences.
The sexual confusion around sex ("gender" for the confused) is directly related to the weakening of family, tribe and nation (common culture).
I've bolded the assertions you've made that are unsupportable. The rest of your post is just a bunch of hooey based on your false presuppositions about sex.
I've already stated if it doesn't impact others wallets then "let them do". Nonetheless I still reserve the right and duty to call it confusion and sickness as I see fit.
- Rant Off -
;)
-
Occasional exceptions do not disprove the rule.
If they did, they'd be part of the rules and not the exceptions.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
Occasional exceptions do not disprove the rule.
If they did, they'd be part of the rules and not the exceptions.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
That's not very inclusive :D
-
Hot off the press.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/nprmsummary.html
We now or soon will pay for the gender reassignment surgery etc. by the diktat of Obama.
-
Hot off the press.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/civilrights/understanding/section1557/nprmsummary.html
We now or soon will pay for the gender reassignment surgery etc. by the diktat of Obama.
Since I don't support Obamacare for anything, I don't consider this relevant.
It makes no difference what forms of healthcare we are paying for, since the fundamental truth is we shouldn't be paying for any of it.
-
You don't need to apologize. I just don't happen to agree with you. A male can't just "self-identify" as a woman any more than that white woman can "self-identify" as a black woman. I'm actually being very lenient recognizing the surgery as marking a switch, because the surgery doesn't alter the body chemistry or the DNA.
My view is that I don't think it's polite for people to claim to be something other than what they are, and I don't think it's polite for men to use the ladies' room.
Oh, I wasn't apologizing.
And since I'm not interested in TSA style stations outside of every public restroom responsible for checking that the appropriate bits and pieces go in the corresponding bathroom, I really think the point is moot.
Again, ladies don't pee in full veiw of one another, so it really doesn't matter.
-
Expanded rapey culture sensitivity and the embrace of transgenderism forces feminists to advocate female modesty!
Feminist heads go all explodey! :rofl:
-
Expanded rapey culture sensitivity and the embrace of transgenderism forces feminists to advocate female modesty!
Feminist heads go all explodey! :rofl:
Modesty?
Dude, seeing other people doing their business is gross.
I don't want to see it, hear it or smell it, thank-you very much!
Besides, feminist hate transgender already.
-
Modesty?
Dude, seeing other people doing their business is gross.
I don't want to see it, hear it or smell it, thank-you very much!
Besides, feminist hate transgender already.
But who are you to tell them so?
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
A lot of your nonsense above is not based on actual biological science. It is a bunch of theory coming out of the social "sciences".
What does cultural Marxism have to with this? The social "sciences" are dominated by cultural Marxists; so all the crazy gender and racial theories we are being bombarded with are being presented as "science".
Assertion without basis; meaningless.
Fundamentally changing America by infiltrating and controlling its institutions is and has been the cultural Marxist modus operandi all along. It isn't so a much a conspiracy as it is a battle between those who hold different presuppositions about the nature of humankind and our institutions.
Given that every nation on earth has these 'problems', it's not marxist. It's also not about 'America'.
The strength of western culture has historically been drawn from family, tribe and nation with its institutions in turn promoting strengthening those ties. The cultural Marxists are those who have been working successfully to undermine those foundations.
It requires some rather mighty leaps in thinking to reach 'attacking family, tribe, and nation' from 'I'm the opposite sex from my body in my head'.
The battle has actually been going on longer than even Marx but his acolytes were some of the first to codify it and those that who have come after have not rested in their work.
Indeed, Damn Marx and his time machine. I mean, they've been able to identify transexuals in Greek society.
Our institutions no longer strengthen traditional family but undermine families in multiple ways, the destruction of gender roles included.
Again, the mere existence of transexuals doesn't degrade gender roles.
The sexual confusion around sex ("gender" for the confused) is directly related to the weakening of family, tribe and nation (common culture).
You know, you're going to have to support this statement specifically. You haven't done anything I've seen to actually tie the two together.
I've bolded the assertions you've made that are unsupportable. The rest of your post is just a bunch of hooey based on your false presuppositions about sex.
Ah, so you think that the brain can't have a gender? Do you realize that that is an assertation that was believed back in the '70s, and discredited in the '80s by intersex babies where, on the assumption that brains don't have a gender, that they're still plastic after birth, they simply assigned sexes to babies with ambiguous genitilia(often female because that was seen as 'easier'). Cue a horde of boys, surgically altered to be girls, raised as girls, given girl hormones, and psychological therapy aimed at reinforcing their 'girlhood', asserting their boyhood from the time they were able despite all of the above.
Unsupportable? Let me support it:
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302211000252) - Summary: The brain developing as male/female depends on a hormone surge at a later point in development than for the development of sexual organs. No hormone surge(or not enough) = female oriented brain, hormone surge = male oriented brain.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.102004276.x/abstract;jsessionid=E616B36439869DF9768C8F3866516C33.f03t02
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JFpq6hYQRhQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA41&dq=brain+gender+transsexual&ots=FkobAGV4uu&sig=6eTFQTY-H93dSf4lpyGmigHtRIk#v=onepage&q=brain%20gender%20transsexual&f=false
I've already stated if it doesn't impact others wallets then "let them do". Nonetheless I still reserve the right and duty to call it confusion and sickness as I see fit.
Well, yeah, it's confusing when your brain says one thing and your body something else. Turns out that the brain differentiates between male/female under the influence of hormones later than the body does.
Now, being the type I am, I will fully admit that a mismatch in the hormone surge is something that went wrong. However, I WILL NOT consider the resulting transgender person to be a deviant because of it.
Please note that approximately ZERO people get gender reassignment surgery for the 'hell of it'. Getting it(in the USA) requires a battery of tests, living as your chosen gender for quite some time, taking hormones that alter the way your body operates, etc...
If you don't have a brain that's telling you that the hormone treatments and such are closer to the way you're supposed to be, you're not going to go through with it.
Bluestar - Even the guys don't pee out in the open. Remember, we approach the urinal, which today typically has dividing panels between each unit, then, when in place with our backs covering the opening, we remove as little as necessary to do our business. Considering that most male underwear have flaps, that's typically 'nothing'.
It would take a while and 'too much attention' to notice a guy who always uses a stall, even just to piss. Even then, it'd be considered impolite to ask, as some guys have to sit due to injury, disease*, or age.
*Not confined to STD. Think cancer.
-
I've never denied that there were androgynous folks who didn't clearly fall into one the two normal sexes. I've addressed that reality earlier in this thread actually.
So most of your post asserting I don't believe in the condition(s) is fighting a strawman of your own construction.
They are a tiny percentage of the population, I suspect smaller than the gay population. The media emphasis on this tiny percentage of the population and the calls to upend our language and culture to accommodate them is lunacy.
You may believe that the social sciences aren't dominated by cultural Marxists steeped in post modern "thought" but you would be wrong; we can agree to disagree here. I agree with you that post modern thought/cultural Marxism is a problem all western nations are facing, not just America.
Historically all peoples have had a process for teaching boys how to be men and girls how to be women. Families, tribes and nations are all part of the process of teaching the youth about being a man, a woman and a good citizen.
In the US we seem to be OK teaching boys that they can be women, girls that they can be men and that western civilization is an evil that must be cured.
Sow confusion, reap a whirlwind. There's a storm a coming.
-
I've never denied that there were androgynous folks who didn't clearly fall into one the two normal sexes. I've addressed that reality earlier in this thread actually.
You called them the exception to the rule. What I mostly objected to in your post is the idea that transgenderism is the product of some sort of Marx conspiracy.
Other than that - expand your definition of 'androgynous', I guess.
So most of your post asserting I don't believe in the condition(s) is fighting a strawman of your own construction.
So you don't believe that transgenderism is some sort of Marxist conspiracy?
Please, identify the strawman. It may be that you're misreading something I said, I'm not always perfect with putting my words down in a clear fashion, and maybe you're reading something into my post that I didn't intend to be there.
They are a tiny percentage of the population, I suspect smaller than the gay population. The media emphasis on this tiny percentage of the population and the calls to upend our language and culture to accommodate them is lunacy.
Yes, it's smaller than the gay population. That being said, I'm a programmer. 90% of my coding efforts are to account for the 10% edge cases. There are actually fewer murderers out there, we have plenty of laws and procedures for dealing with them.
As for upending language and culture, you do realize that it's not the trans people calling for that, other than letting them go from 'him to her' and vice versa, as a permanent change, when they're willing to get plastic surgery to make the bits match? It might be weird, but somebody willing to go through the 'ordeal' of sex reassignment has pretty much earned the right. Unlike those that don't want hormones, don't want surgery, but DO want to be referred to has 'Hir' and such. Those are the types I have a beef with.
That actually creates something of a complication. Hormones are easy, relatively speaking. Surgery is expensive. So by refusing to fund their surgeries(or even give them a loan on good terms), one thing to be aware of is that we're actually expanding the 'problem zone' where people have rendered themselves androgynous. Where they've been taking female hormones for long enough that they've developed breasts and such, but haven't yet gotten a vagina(or a convincing fake) because of lack of funds. I don't like paying for this sort of stuff with public funds either, but it's a consequence to be aware of.
Now, this may be weird, but back in the day a trans-woman 'won' a big victory in Iran. Subsequently, there's some issues with 'you like dick? You're either a trans-woman(and we'll pay for the surgery!) or you're a gay male(death sentence!). But they don't have bathroom problems because the process is so fast.
You may believe that the social sciences aren't dominated by cultural Marxists steeped in post modern "thought" but you would be wrong; we can agree to disagree here. I agree with you that post modern thought/cultural Marxism is a problem all western nations are facing, not just America.
??? No, I said that 'transgenderism' is a global phenomenon, and is independent from western thought.
Historically all peoples have had a process for teaching boys how to be men and girls how to be women. Families, tribes and nations are all part of the process of teaching the youth about being a man, a women and a good citizen.
In the US we seem to be OK teaching boys that they can be women, girls that they can be men and that western civilization is an evil that must be cured.
Okay. Responding to this is going to take some thought.
First: Stereotypical gender roles have their downsides as well as upsides. Should my brother be looked down upon because he's a stay at home dad? Should we look down on a woman because she knows how to operate a chainsaw, or a man because he knows how to sew? Or would a better statement be that we should be teaching children to be adults?
Second: Going by the studies, we don't need to be teaching boys to be men. Teaching them that they can be a woman is going to get you looked at funny, unless they happen to be transgender, but then in that case you don't have to tell them they can be a woman - they figure that out on their own. That stuff, it turns out, is set in the womb.
My theory: Current protocols are more or less okay. When somebody ID's themselves as transgender, there's doctors who make sure they aren't doing so out of a desire for attention and what not. Using established protocols, they determine that, yes, the person is male/female in the head. After that, they go into a program where they live as their 'chosen' gender and receive hormones for the same. After being able to pass in public as that gender for at least a certain amount of time, they become eligible for the surgery. Personally, I'm for changing over documents before the surgery, when they're able to pass in public as that gender, because that will generate the fewest weird looks. Done. No big national debate over it needed.
-
Well, maybe there are more exceptions to the rule than you think. Roughly speaking, you have the brain and the body.
Turns out that the brain can have a gender, and that sometimes it can be the opposite gender from the body. Call it an 'invisible' case of androgyny. Because these types can usually say that they 'should' have been the opposite sex from even before puberty.
Assertion without basis; meaningless.
-
*my quotes*
You think that's an argument?
Let me refer you to another part of my post:
Unsupportable? Let me support it:
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302211000252) - Summary: The brain developing as male/female depends on a hormone surge at a later point in development than for the development of sexual organs. No hormone surge(or not enough) = female oriented brain, hormone surge = male oriented brain.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.102004276.x/abstract;jsessionid=E616B36439869DF9768C8F3866516C33.f03t02
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JFpq6hYQRhQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA41&dq=brain+gender+transsexual&ots=FkobAGV4uu&sig=6eTFQTY-H93dSf4lpyGmigHtRIk#v=onepage&q=brain%20gender%20transsexual&f=false[/quote]
There's the basis for my assertation.
-
No cherry picking there, no siree Bob :P
-
No cherry picking there, no siree Bob :P
scholar.google.com, pick the first studies that match the search terms. Or do you have scientific studies that say something else? ???
-
Why do I need a study?
I'm not the one confused about the sexes.
edited to add: seriously though, those studies don't even approach the weak tea proof of consensus let alone being a fact.
-
Why do I need a study?
I'm not the one confused about the sexes.
edited to add: seriously though, those studies don't even approach the weak tea proof of consensus let alone being a fact.
What can I say but it's actually a relatively marginal topic. As has been mentioned elsewhere, figuring out more details of our own development aside, not many people suffer from these probelms. I'm not a medical guy, just using scholar.google.com. But the studies I looked at treated the hormone-brain thing as more or less settled.
Consider, it's 'weak tea proof', but it's the only 'proof' that's been presented. Personally, I think it's enough to consider that sometimes surgery is the 'best' answer - it being easier to 'fix' the body than the brain after development.
It's mostly a public issue because the trans people want to be able to switch their documentation over to their desired sex, as well as get the government to mandate insurance policies pay for the surgeries, with the government paying if it's the one providing the medical care(IE CHIP, welfare, medicare, tricare, etc...). Note, they think it's expensive now, wait until uncle sam or insurance companies are paying!
Meanwhile, on the other side we have people who insist that it's a mental problem(duh!), but in my opinion fail to suggest practical alternatives.
-
You do realize that there are Female to Male types out there, right?
Very few, though, which also raises interesting questions about the entire concept of "male privilege." After all, shouldn't there be hordes of women seeking to improve their earning potential, be treated better by society, etc.?
-
Very few, though, which also raises interesting questions about the entire concept of "male privilege." After all, shouldn't there be hordes of women seeking to improve their earning potential, be treated better by society, etc.?
They're about 1/3rd as common as MTF, yes. Which makes some sense if you consider that to get a 'male' brain you need a testosterone surge at the right point of development, meaning that if that's missed for whatever reason you get a female one. Whereas getting a male brain* in a female fetus would require getting a hormone surge that's not programmed for. Remember - women do produce testosterone naturally, just reduced amounts compared to men.
But yeah, this endorses the Gender binary - A woman is a woman, typically speaking, and doesn't want to be a man, even if it comes with some advantages. Advantages which, generally speaking, aren't worth the disadvantages. The way I put it - the average is about the same for men and women. However, men have a wider spread. IE we succeed wildly more often, but so don't we fail. Men are dis-proportionally represented on both the top and the bottom of the economic success spectrum.
Men have higher rates of genetic disease, suicide, victims of murder, violence, and die sooner. For every man who 'makes it big' by virtue of being male, you have dozens of homeless. Homeless men are generally allowed to rot outside. Homeless female? That's a critical care point, gotta get her shelter and support ASAP.
*Please note that the brains of trans people are not actually that of the opposite sex, but share some characteristics with the opposite sex. I'm using 'male brain' and such as a shorthand.
-
You think that's an argument?
Let me refer you to another part of my post:
Unsupportable? Let me support it:
Sexual differentiation of the human brain: Relation to gender identity, sexual orientation and neuropsychiatric disorders (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091302211000252) - Summary: The brain developing as male/female depends on a hormone surge at a later point in development than for the development of sexual organs. No hormone surge(or not enough) = female oriented brain, hormone surge = male oriented brain.
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/09513590400018231
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1034/j.1600-0447.2000.102004276.x/abstract;jsessionid=E616B36439869DF9768C8F3866516C33.f03t02
https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=JFpq6hYQRhQC&oi=fnd&pg=PA41&dq=brain+gender+transsexual&ots=FkobAGV4uu&sig=6eTFQTY-H93dSf4lpyGmigHtRIk#v=onepage&q=brain%20gender%20transsexual&f=false
There's the basis for my assertation.
Interestingly, the study you actually linked appears to contradict this study: http://www.armedpolitesociety.com/index.php?topic=49395.0 which says that the brain structures DO change from adulthood use of hormonal treatments.
So the study that "trans-XXX have the brain of their chosen sex" may well be caused by taking the hormones for that sex. Not the reverse.
-
With all the Jenner hoopla going on I started to wonder if he had used steroids for training at any time in his life.
Maybe he baked his endocrine system and physiological changes took place in his brain due to excess estrogen.
-
So the study that "trans-XXX have the brain of their chosen sex" may well be caused by taking the hormones for that sex. Not the reverse.
Hmm... I don't think they're addressing quite the same topics. Also, biology is 'messy'. Also, keep in mind that they were assessing FTM transexuals, so how close to 'normal' they already were is questionable.
How about this as a theory:
While hormones continue to influence the brain throughout life, there exists a critical point, while the fetus is still in the womb, where a hormone surge spurs development along a broadly 'male' or 'female' path.
Depending on hormone uptake, duration, period, levels, and everything else, you may get a person who is physically a fully developed and functional member of one sex, but have a brain 'oriented' to being the opposite sex. The continued presence of hormones of the physical sex may or may not be enough to 'correct' this viewpoint later on. However, for at least a subset, standard amounts of hormones that won't cause damage in other ways is not enough to 'correct' the mental viewpoint. In those cases surgical alteration of the body to match the mind might be the best therapy possible. Meanwhile, shaming, isolating, deprecating, and otherwise taunting the trans-person is unhelpful to their mental health.
With all the Jenner hoopla going on I started to wonder if he had used steroids for training at any time in his life.
Maybe he baked his endocrine system and physiological changes took place in his brain due to excess estrogen.
Interesting theory...
-
Interesting theory...
I figure it's just trying to avoid having Bubba for a cellmate when the time to pay the piper finally comes on that wreck.
-
Apparently? Seriously, one can consider heart surgery extreme, but I doubt any here would argue it's necessity. The brain surgery that attempts to treat epilepsy by having the connections between the right and left side severed is extreme.
Gender reassignment surgery, on the other hand, is 'merely' plastic surgery. Techniques pioneered for reconstruction after accidents, to 'correct' those born intersex(or whatever the current term is), and such has given us the ability to do a 'really good' job at it.
Heart surgery and those you listed are attempts to fix organs not operating properly in order to save the life of the patient or enable the patient to function normally.
A sex change operation is not "merely" plastic surgery. After a male or female has been so mutilated, they can no longer function as male or female. This mutilation results in a loss of natural function.
There are plenty of 'less intact' males and females out there, for various unfortunate reasons.
Are you a surgeon? No? How do you know it's severe? How do you know it's mutilating? Do you consider being female being mutilated? Do you consider being male mutilated?
Your word games are less than impressive.
-
So glad we have you to be the arbiter of all that is moral and good. What would my moral compass do without you?
The world wonders.
As long as I don't have to pay for it, either up front or for the mess made after, I don't care what someone does or has done with their dangly bits.
But I do have an opinion about the folks that want to get the remodeling work done and the medical practitioners that do such work and it isn't a very high one.
No no no. Rooster said it's immoral and you should care.
Otto JJ, would it be too much to ask for you to spend a moment understanding what you read? I have not made an argument that self-harm is immoral (that is another topic), but that helping to facilitate the self-harm of mentally disturbed people is. It does seem that RKL's opinion of those who do facilitate self-harm is similar to mine, thus your faux-hectoring of RKL is meaningless.
As for whether folk should care about mentally disturbed people harming themselves, your position does have its adherents in those that egg on suicidal folk on the brink of jumping off of buildings or bridges.
-
With all the Jenner hoopla going on I started to wonder if he had used steroids for training at any time in his life.
Maybe he baked his endocrine system and physiological changes took place in his brain due to excess estrogen.
Has that guy actually had any surgery? I am still wondering if this is just a big media show to generate riches for Bruce. He has been seeing those daughters get rich acting like fools.
-
A sex change operation is not "merely" plastic surgery. After a male or female has been so mutilated, they can no longer function as male or female. This mutilation results in a loss of natural function.
And the gaining of other function. Well, at least in MtF - FtM isn't as developed.
From what you said earlier: or enable the patient to function normally.
The patient WANTS to function as the other sex.
You call it 'mutilation', true. Personally, I'd call it mutilation myself if I was so operated on. But it's their choice. Like the epileptic, they could just learn to live with the disconnect.
Your word games are less than impressive.
The problem is, I've moved beyond 'word games', posting things like studies. You're the one who is depending on nothing but word games.
I'll go back to what I've said, supported by scientific study: There are actually people out there who's brains make them want to be the opposite sex, most likely due to complicated things involving prenatal hormone levels at various points during the pregnancy. Their mental view is different than their physical body.
Now, this is a problem. Choices I can think of are:
1. Suck up the problem. Hello suicide rates, unhappiness, etc...
2. Change their body - physical surgery.
3. Change their mind - At this point mucking around with the firmware is a much less developed science than mucking with the hardware.
-
In response to the question of self mutilation, including that done with the aid of a professional.
Can someone please find some of those pictures of people who've had obsene amounts of plastic surgery or extream body modifications (tatoos, pericings, whatnot)?
Self mutilation is already a legal option for any adult who chooses to do so.
So, the whole argument over if it's bad or good is irrelevant. It's the same thing that's already being practiced.
(And before someone raves, did you know that breast augmentation surgery or reductions have permenant effects that include losing perfectly healthy nerve endings and can result in the loss of function of the breast? Yet, I don't see any of ya'll lining up outside the cosmetic surgeon office and decrying the woman who are "mutilating" their own breasts for the sake of what they look like)
-
How many of those body mutilations specifically cater to mutilating themselves as a direct result of a mental disease?
-
How many of those body mutilations specifically cater to mutilating themselves as a direct result of a mental disease?
I've seen people who seriously argue that tattoos and body piercings are a sign of mental illness. Yes, even minor tattoos. They think people who get 'sleeves' and such are full up crazy.
-
Which is why I'm fully and wholly against trans surgeries for anyone on public assistance, in jail, or in the military.
You realize that's a moral jdgement no different than the one rooster is making correct? You aren't opposed to dictating or legislating morality, you just want to be the one doing it.
-
How many of those body mutilations specifically cater to mutilating themselves as a direct result of a mental disease?
Much of the plastic surgery industry is funded by the low self esteem of woman, many of whom suffer from things like depression and substance abuse.
-
Much of the plastic surgery industry is funded by the low self esteem of woman, many of whom suffer from things like depression and substance abuse.
And much of it isn't, nor is the plastic surgery itself the direct manifestation of the particular mental disorder.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
Here's a thought:
If they're happy with the surgery after it's completed, and they don't seek further alteration, hasn't it 'solved the problem'? By 'completed' I mean that it's fine if it's a course of surgeries because they can't do it all in one go, but the whole series is more or less planned out before the first one is ever performed. 'More or less' is in there because it might be like building a custom house - you discover a boulder when you're excavating the foundation, so alterations have to be made there, that crenelated turret needs to be adjusted because it can't be built as planned, etc... But once the home is completed you don't immediately start remodeling it. The turret can't be circular, it needs to be square. We need to relocate the kitchen from the back to the front of the house, etc...
Bluestar brings up a good point - consider women getting plastic surgery. If they're getting it because of a mental disorder, and it's not solving the problem, they're going to keep going back.
Consider Michael Jackson and his nose. The women who get so many breast implants of increasing size that their boobs are more silicone than breast.
-
And much of it isn't, nor is the plastic surgery itself the direct manifestation of the particular mental disorder.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
Dude, most of the transgender transformation *is* plastic surgery.
-
Dude, most of the transgender transformation *is* plastic surgery.
Really? I thought they waved a wand and a dick sprouted.
It's a surgery that specifically caters to disfigure someone with a mental disorder.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
Now wait a minute...
In poking around trying to find out more about this phenomenon, I came across this name:
Aleshia Brevard
...who appeared in the movie "The Love God?", a Don Knotts vehicle:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064606/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
Long story short, it turns out she's a transgendered actress, so I poked around some more and found this image.
http://www.aleshiabrevard.com/popups/Lg_Fins_Daddy01.htm
Now you guys are gonna sit there and tell me that this transgendered, queer, whacko, mentally ill person should not have had gender reassignment surgery? You think this is a unique case? You think he/she chose the way she was born? You think that he/she didn't go through hell in High School gym locker rooms?* You think that her malformed male body was merely a "cross he has to bear as a test of his faith" or some other religious dictum?
Sorry, but in my tentative digging around, my tentative decision is that a lot or most of this stuff isn't mere "cosmetic surgery," or the fulfillment of a sick fantasy, or just plain craziness, but perhaps, just perhaps, "bringing to perfection God's work," and also perhaps, strong evidence that there is no binary categorization of "boys" and "girls" as so many seem to think.
Or believe.
Or parrot.
Terry
*I'm supposing that, not a fact in evidence.
-
I don't think anyone is arguing against a legitimate case of fixing a malformation already present to take a lil of both condition to a one or the other condition.
Sent from my iPhone. Freaking autocorrect.
-
You realize that's a moral jdgement no different than the one rooster is making correct? You aren't opposed to dictating or legislating morality, you just want to be the one doing it.
I just don't want to be the one paying for it. That's all I ask. I don't want to pay for anyone else's anything. Not cancer treatments, not trans surgery, not a boob job, not anything.
-
Now wait a minute...
In poking around trying to find out more about this phenomenon, I came across this name:
Aleshia Brevard
...who appeared in the movie "The Love God?", a Don Knotts vehicle:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0064606/fullcredits?ref_=tt_cl_sm#cast
A Don Knotts movie I never heard of! :laugh: I'm still looking for a copy of this one:
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fth03.deviantart.net%2Ffs70%2FPRE%2Fi%2F2011%2F089%2F0%2Fd%2Ftoo_many_ostriches_by_topher208-d3curj0.jpg&hash=1a90cb1b822c1f7d34cd0a57d3cbc93121941c2a)
-
I just don't want to be the one paying for it. That's all I ask. I don't want to pay for anyone else's anything. Not cancer treatments, not trans surgery, not a boob job, not anything.
Which is a moral judgement no different than the one roo proposed.
-
Which is a moral judgement no different than the one roo proposed.
Sounds more like a financially based judgement to me.
-
Which is a moral judgement no different than the one roo proposed.
Not wanting to pay for something that isn't for you is a moral judgment?
-
Not wanting to pay for something that isn't for you is a moral judgment?
In a sense. Consider it a moral call between the individual and society.
Some people who are more of the 'society' viewpoint* views healthcare as an uneven critical need, thus something to be covered by 'insurance'. Because it can exist from birth(and before), and a few other things, not even commercial insurance companies can effectively support it, so you get national health care.
His statement makes him out to be an individualist, but also makes him look either mean-spirited (I keep what I have!) or hypocritical if he's gotten assistance from the government, but wants to deny said assistance to others. For example, Ayn Rand ended up on social security before she died.
*And nobody sane is completely one or the other
-
Not wanting to pay for something that isn't for you is a moral judgment?
Yes. Moral obligations and judgments can carry financial obligations.
Just like child support. Some people make the moral judgement that if you are the biological father of a child you have a moral duty to support it, and that moral judgement has been codified into law. Other people argue that this is an incorrect moral judgement and wish to see it removed. Either way, it's a moral issue that revolves around financial questions.
My only point is this. All law is codified morality. To come on here and make explicit moral arguments, and then slam others for making moral arguments, is absurd and hypocritical. People get this weird idea that "morality" is just about sex, and all of the other things in their life they hold opinions on as "right" or "wrong" are somehow not.
-
....
Is these people for real?
Money does not grow on trees, Balog. Making financially based decisions is not the same as making a moral decision.
Child support? Let me ask you something? Do you think the IRS is taking in enough money to financially assist all those single parents? Or do you think it might be more financially viable to have the other parent chip in for their induvidial spawn?
Medical bills? Flipping sky high. I waver back and forth on public funding for emergency services. For the most part I lean towards it, since I think it's probably on the safer side to save lives first and than inquire into the bill, but if the person isn't actually facing imminent death for a medical procedure? Can we, as a country, afford this? Nope. We can't. Especially if they add cosmetic surgery as something stupid Obamacare pays for (and it's not the trannys that's going to make us go broke on that, it's the masses of woman who want to look like they sat in front of a high powered fan until their faces got stuck)
That's not a moral judgement. That's a finical one.
Again, money don't grow on trees. The country cannot afford this crap. This country is already IN DEBT.
-
Is these people for real?
Money does not grow on trees, Balog. Making financially based decisions is not the same as making a moral decision.
Yes, 'these people for real' do exist, though I'm not reading Balog as one of them.
There are areas of California that are running debtor's prisons for 'deadbeat dads' where they imprison men for not making child support payments despite them being un or under-employed, with the argument that 'if they just tried hard enough' that they would be able to earn enough money to satisfy their payments. Often child support still accumulates while they're in jail, even as the state takes away any licenses they might have - including their driver's license, which they aren't guaranteed to get back unless they manage to get caught up. Part of the problem? How do you expect, for example, a plumber to get caught up on child support if he can't work as a plumber, nor legally drive the truck to get to people's homes to do plumbing work?
Medical bills? Flipping sky high. I waver back and forth on public funding for emergency services.
I agree. Part of the problem is that once you agree to public funding of emergency rooms, it emerges that it's now cheaper to publicly fund other healthcare in order to keep as many people out of the emergency room in the first place as possible. An ounce of preventing being worth a pound of cure...
There's a lot of 'penny wise pound foolish' spending out there. For example, it's been calculated that a single homeless man costs the governments involved approximately a quarter million dollars a year. You can knock that expense down to under $40k/year by providing basic food & shelter, without rules that force often mentally ill and drug addicted people to stay on the street. Surprisingly, once you get them INTO shelter, they're a lot more likely to clean up, than requiring them to clean up before you provide them shelter.
-
....
Is these people for real?
I really don't know what to do with that comment. And the rest is just "angry old man yells at clouds" level ranting that has nothing whatsoever to do with the point I was making.
I'll take it slow since you seem to be having trouble with the argument as a whole.
Do you understand the concept that moral decisions can be made about financial subjects? Or, to put it another way, that morality and money are not separate things but can be intertwined? Saying "Decision X is about money!" does not mean that Decision X is not a moral one.
-
Do you understand the concept that moral decisions can be made about financial subjects? Or, to put it another way, that morality and money are not separate things but can be intertwined? Saying "Decision X is about money!" does not mean that Decision X is not a moral one.
For that matter, 'We have a limited amount of money, here's how we think it's best to spend it' is another moral choice. Do we save the whales, or the cheetahs? Do we concentrate on the kids of single moms, or those with Down's? How much to the highway fund to fix 'deficient' bridges? Etc...
-
Eminent domain is a financial decision, so there are no moral implications to its use.
-
Eminent domain is a financial decision, so there are no moral implications to its use.
You need space for a new school. Do you ED the 200 year old church, the black community, the white community, the hippy community, etc...?
-
You need space for a new school. Do you ED the 200 year old church, the black community, the white community, the hippy community, etc...?
I believe Balog had his sarcasm hat on for that post. You just can't see it through the tubes.
-
I believe Balog had his sarcasm hat on for that post. You just can't see it through the tubes.
Let me try again.
"On the one hand, yes he did have his wife murdered, which would normally be a moral issue. However, he only did it for the insurance payoff, so it's just a financial decision and thus impervious to issues of morality."